Food and Nutrition Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice (“Department”) is making inflationary adjustments to immigration-related fees for filings with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) as required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2027.
This rule is effective October 1, 2026.
Jamee E. Comans, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a toll-free call).
On July 4, 2025, a congressional budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 1), commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”), became law. Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72. As relevant here, OBBBA introduced new required immigration-related fees for EOIR applications, motions, and appeals beginning in FY 2025 (“OBBBA fees”) and mandated that the Attorney General annually update these OBBBA fees for inflation.
In doing so, the Department notes that this rule does not change any fee amounts collected under section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), nor does this rule make any changes to fee exceptions or waivers. Additionally, EOIR's regulatory fee schedule does not contain fee amounts for application forms published by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), though those fees that are collected by EOIR will be updated on EOIR's website and the EOIR Payment Portal.
OBBBA requires that all EOIR-collected OBBBA fees be adjusted annually for inflation and directs that a specific adjustment formula be applied to each fee.
The table below shows the total FY 2027 EOIR fee amounts by calculating the FY 2027 OBBBA fees using the formula described above, and then adding these updated OBBBA fee amounts to the preexisting EOIR fees under section 286(m) of the Act.
The FY 2027 filing fee amounts will be required for any relevant filings with the Immigration Courts or the Board of Immigration Appeals filed on or after October 1, 2026 (the first day of FY 2027). EOIR will continue to reject any filings that are not accompanied by a proper filing fee or request for an applicable fee waiver.
EOIR will update these amounts annually as required, including on its website and the EOIR Payment Portal.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), agencies generally must provide “notice of proposed rule making” in the
However, pursuant to the APA, a rule is excepted from notice-and-comment procedures when an agency for good cause finds that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). A rule is also excepted from the delayed-effective-date requirement when good cause is found by the agency to forgo this requirement and is published with the rule.
As discussed above, OBBBA requires the Attorney General to annually update EOIR-collected OBBBA fees for inflation using a statutorily prescribed formula.
This rule does not trigger the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because, as explained above, the Department is not required “to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking” prior to issuing this rule.
Executive Order 12866,
The Department has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Nevertheless, the Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles laid out in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
This rule merely updates pertinent EOIR fee amounts to be consistent with the fee changes required by statute. Accordingly, any changes made by this rule do not impose a cost upon the public beyond the terms of the statute. Likewise, these regulatory changes provide clarity, which benefits the public and helps avoid confusion over the current fee amounts. Thus, the changes made by this rule do not impact the public in a way that would place it in tension with the principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 or 13563.
This rule is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192,
Executive Order 14294,
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (inflation adjusted) in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571).
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132,
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
This rule does not propose new or revised “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. However, the Department notes that EOIR is separately making de minimis changes to EOIR forms to update the fee amounts on the forms in light of the inflation adjustments required by OBBBA.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and by the authority vested in the Acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, by Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Department amends part 1103 of title 8 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 1801, 1802, 1808, 1812; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce (Department).
Final rule.
By this rule, NIST amends its regulations governing traffic and conduct at its sites in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado. This rule amends those regulations by removing excessive and redundant restrictions on personal conduct, updating or removing sections with outdated references or requirements, and broadening an exception regarding the use of service dogs. This action is necessary to ensure that NIST's regulations conform to the scope of the underlying statutory authorities and to reduce regulatory complexity, redundancy, and burden. This action is intended to promote statutory conformity, administrative efficiency, and accessibility for people with disabilities, without imposing any new obligations or costs on the public.
The rule is effective August 21, 2026.
Daniel Sweeney, Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 482-1395.
This action amends NIST's regulations at 15 CFR part 265, which govern traffic and conduct on the grounds of NIST's sites in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado. The regulations at part 265 were initially promulgated on November 26, 1974 (39 FR 41170), and they were subsequently amended on November 24, 1976 (41 FR 51787), September 18, 1990 (55 FR 38316), and, most recently, December 27, 1991 (56 FR 66969).
The cited statutory authorities for these regulations are 15 U.S.C. 278e(b) and 15 U.S.C. 277. The former authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to undertake “the care, maintenance, protection, repair, and alteration of [NIST] buildings and other plant facilities, equipment, and property,” 15 U.S.C. 278e(b); and the latter states that the Secretary “shall . . . make regulations . . . as he may deem necessary for carrying this chapter into effect,” 15 U.S.C. 277. As relevant, the more specific of these two provisions, 15 U.S.C. 278e(b), centers around the physical preservation of NIST's buildings and other property.
The regulations at part 265 contain citations to 40 U.S.C. 318 and 318c, both of which were reclassified and restated as 40 U.S.C. 1315 in 2002 (Pub. L. 107-217).
This action amends the regulations at part 265 in the following ways.
These specified restrictions on on-site personal conduct also are overwhelmingly unnecessary, given the applicability of state law,
Thus, the removal of these specified restrictions on on-site personal conduct will help ensure statutory conformity, streamline part 265, reduce regulatory redundancy, and reduce the possibility of confusion.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule merely (i) removes regulatory restrictions on personal conduct at NIST sites that exceed the bounds of the underlying statutory authorities and are duplicative of ample other legal and regulatory restrictions on personal conduct; (ii) updates or removes certain regulatory sections to properly reflect the current state of other legal, regulatory, and administrative authorities and requirements; and (iii) broadens an arbitrarily-limited exception for seeing eye dogs for blind persons to instead cover all appropriate service dogs for persons with disabilities. None of the language being removed or otherwise amended by this rule is required by any statute, and all of the removals and amendments made by this rule are consistent with the Department's commitment and obligation to ensure statutory conformity and to minimize unnecessary regulatory burden. Public participation is also impracticable because it could not cure the statutorily-excessive nature of the regulatory restrictions on personal conduct untethered to the physical preservation of NIST property; nor could it cure the plainly outdated requirements and references to other authorities. As for broadening the exception to allow for all appropriate service dogs, the public interest is best served by implementing this change as quickly as possible, without conducting notice and comment, as the current language poses an arbitrary barrier to persons with disabilities and is potentially in conflict with the Department's legal obligations regarding accommodation.
For the same reason, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of this rule would be contrary to the public interest. The described removals and amendments will streamline part 265, reduce regulatory excess and inaccuracies, and promote accessibility for persons who require service dogs—all of which will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. In addition, these regulatory revisions do not require any affected entity to take advance action to come into compliance. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d)(3).
Furthermore, to the extent that this rule removes restrictions on on-site conduct (§§ 265.4, 265.17, 265.35(a),
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government property, Traffic and conduct regulations, Buildings and grounds, Safety, Penalties.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, part 265 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Sec. 9, 31 Stat. 1450, as amended (15 U.S.C. 277). Applies sec. 1, 72 Stat 1711, as amended, (15 U.S.C. 278e(b)).
(b)
The regulations in this part establish rules with respect to motor vehicles and conduct on the site. These regulations are intended to promote the maintenance and protection of site buildings, facilities, equipment, and property, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278e(b); and to supplement the government-wide rules and regulations regarding employee responsibilities and conduct at 5 U.S.C. 375 and 5 U.S.C. 2635, the officially issued orders and regulations of the Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and all other applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.
(a) No person shall unreasonably obstruct the usual use of entrances, foyers, lobbies, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, parking lots, sidewalks, or road.
Except in connection with the conduct of official business on the site or with the approval of the Associate Director for Administration (Executive Officer, IBS/Boulder, for sites in Colorado), no person shall bring upon the site any cat, dog, or other animal, provided, however, that persons with disabilities may have the use of appropriate service dogs.
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(a) through (b)(1)(ii) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(a) through (b)(1)(ii).
(iii)
(b)(2) through (b)(5) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(b)(2) through (b)(5).
(6)
(ii)
(B)
(iii)
(B)
(b)(7) through (c)(1)(ii)(A) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(b)(7) through (c)(1)(ii)(A).
(B)
(c)(2) through (c)(3)(i)(D) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(c)(2) through (c)(3)(i)(D).
(E)
(c)(3)(ii) through (d)(2) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(c)(3)(ii) through (d)(2).
(3) Gives rise to a qualified short-term section 988 transaction (as defined in § 1.987-3T(b)(4)(iii)(B)) of the section 987 QBU, whether denominated in the functional currency of the owner or other nonfunctional currency with respect to the section 987 QBU, for which section 988 gain or loss is determined under § 1.987-3T(b)(4)(iii)(A) in, and by reference to, the functional currency of the section 987 QBU.
(e) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(e).
(f)
(g)(1) through(g)(2)(i)(A) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(g)(1) through (g)(2)(i)(A).
(B)
(
(
(
(C)
(g)(2)(ii) through (g)(3)(i)(D) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(g)(2)(ii) through (g)(3)(i)(D).
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(g)(4) through (6) [Reserved] For further guidance, see § 1.987-1(g)(4) through (6).
(h)
(i)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; not approving, with one exception.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is not approving, with one exception, an amendment to the Montana regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Montana legislature, specifically Montana House Bill 328, proposes to add a definition of affected drainage basin to the Montana Code Annotated (MCA). Additionally, House Bill 328 proposes changes to the Montana Code Annotated, pertaining to bond release application requirements.
The effective date is September 21, 2026.
Jeffrey Fleischman, Division Chief, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street,
Subject to OSM's oversight, section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations.
By letter dated February 16, 2023 (FDMS Document ID No. OSM-2023-0002-0002), Montana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the May 19, 2023,
During our review of the amendment, we identified many concerns with the formal program amendment as submitted. Our concerns included (1) Montana's proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” in MCA § 82-4-203(3), (2) Montana's proposal to strike the words “if it is satisfied” from MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k), (3) Montana's proposed changes to MCA at §§ 82-4-232(6)(k)(ii) and 82-4-232(6)(k)(iii), (4) Montana's addition of subpart “C” language in MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iv), which could allow for final bond release to occur in the phased bond release process normally reserved for reclamation activities associated with phase II bond release, and (5) Montana's proposed changes in the MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(v), which would remove the period specified for operator responsibility.
We notified Montana of our concerns in a letter dated August 31, 2023, and allowed Montana the opportunity to submit a revised amendment or draft proposed changes in response to our concerns. Montana responded in a letter dated September 28, 2023, stating that because the proposed changes to the MCA were legislative in nature, they would be unable to submit revisions to the amendment. For this reason, we are proceeding with the final rule
SMCRA sections 503 and 505, and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.5, establish the criteria for approval of State SMCRA programs. A State program must set forth requirements that satisfy the Federal minimum standards and must include provisions that are no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations. If these minimum Federal standards are met, a State may indicate that its State program shall not be more stringent than the Federal program.
The following is a summary of the proposed statutory and rule changes submitted by Montana, as well as OSMRE's findings concerning Montana's amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. For the reasons discussed below, we are not approving the amendment, with one exception, as described below.
In Senate Bill 328, Montana proposes to define the term “affected drainage basin”, which would mean “an area of land where surface water and ground water quality and quantity are affected by mining activities and where they drain to a common point”. No direct federal counterpart definition for affected drainage basin exists. The Federal definition of hydrologic balance (30 CFR 701.5) does include the term “drainage basin” and means the relationship between the quality and quantity of water inflow to, water outflow from, and water storage in a hydrologic unit such as a drainage basin, aquifer, soil zone, lake, or reservoir. The Federal definition further defines hydrologic balance as encompassing the dynamic relationships among precipitation, runoff, evaporation, and changes in groundwater and surface water storage and that a drainage basin is therefore one example of a hydrologic unit in terms of the hydrologic balance. The Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), at 17.24.1116(6)(d)(i), which pertain to phase IV bond release, require all disturbed lands within any designated drainage basin to have been reclaimed in accordance with phase I, phase II, and phase III requirements. The terms “designated drainage basin”, “affected drainage basin”, and “drainage basin” are not defined in the ARM. With this amendment submittal, Montana is proposing to define “affected drainage basin” in the MCA. The term “designated drainage basin” is used (but not defined) in the ARM. If approved, the definition of “affected drainage basin” would introduce inconsistencies in terminology between the State statute and the rule. Additionally, the proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” is unclear. Better defining “affected drainage basin” and consistent terminology and definitions between the State statute and the rule would help the effectiveness of the Montana program. A State program must set forth requirements that satisfy the Federal minimum standards and must include provisions that are no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations. Differing terminology between State statute and rule and an unclear definition would render the proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” less effective than the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are not approving this provision.
Because we are not approving Montana's proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” at MCA § 82-4-203(3), the following proposed definition recodifications in the MCA are no longer necessary and would also not be approved:
MCA § 82-4-203(4)(a)—Alluvial Valley Floor [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(5)—Approximate Original Contour [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(6)—Aquifer [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(7)—Area of Land Affected [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(8)—Bench [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(9)—Board [No corresponding Federal definition]
MCA § 82-4-203(10)—Coal Conservation Plan [No corresponding Federal definition]
MCA § 82-4-203(11)—Coal Preparation [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(12)—Coal Preparation Plant [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(13)—Contour Strip Mining [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(14)—Cropland [30 CFR 701.5]
MCA § 82-4-203(15)—Degree [No corresponding Federal definition]
MCA § 82-4-203(16)—Department [No corresponding Federal definition]
MCA § 82-4-203(17)—Developed Water Resources [30 CFR 701.5]
In Senate Bill 328, Montana is proposing revisions to bond release requirements and incorporates the proposed new definition of “affected drainage basin” (MCA § 82-4-203(3) into its revisions of MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k). Current Montana rules, at ARM 17.24.1116(6)(d)(i), which pertain to phase IV bond release, require all disturbed lands within any “designated drainage basin” to have been reclaimed in accordance with phase I, II, and III requirements. If approved, a conflict would exist between the MCA and the ARM, in that the ARM confines phase IV bond release to be within a “designated drainage basin”; with the MCA proposing to allow for any phase bond release, including phase IV, to occur within or across an “affected drainage basin”. Further, different terminology is used between proposed statute and rule with Montana proposing to define and use “affected drainage basin” in the MCA, and the ARM currently employs but does not define “designated drainage basin”. The Federal rules and requirements for phased bond release in 30 CFR 800.40 are consistent with the Federal requirements for phased bond release in SMCRA section 519(c). Consistent terminology is needed between proposed statute and existing rule for this revision to be as stringent as SMCRA and as effective as the Federal regulations. Therefore, we are not approving this provision.
In the same statute (MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)), Montana is proposing to remove the words “if it is satisfied” from the sentence: “At the request of the permittee, and for a designated area within the permit boundary within or across affected drainage basins, the department shall release the bond in whole or in part if it is satisfied the reclamation covered by the bond or portion of the bond has been accomplished as required by this part according to the following schedule:” This change could be interpreted as though the regulatory authority loses the discretion to make the determination that the reclamation covered by the bond or portion of the bond has been accomplished as required. If the permittee submits a bond release application package, Montana could potentially lose the ability to deny the bond release package or portions thereof even if Montana determines that the reclamation covered by the bond or portion of the bond has not been accomplished. Read plainly, if the permittee requests bond release, then by removing the phrase “if it is satisfied”, Montana would be required to release the bond in whole or in part if the reclamation has been accomplished
Montana's proposed changes to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(ii) are as stringent as its counterpart in SMCRA section 519(c)(2) (30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(2)) and as effective as counterpart Federal rules at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2) when coupled with subsequent proposed changes to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iii). However, because we are not approving MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iii), which, as proposed, would have included language that would have been struck from the proposed revisions to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(ii), we are not approving these changes.
Montana's proposed changes to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iii) are as stringent as its counterpart in SMCRA section 519(c)(2) (30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(2)) and as effective as counterpart Federal rules at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2). However, Montana proposes to also reference MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iv) in this provision. Because we are not approving Montana's proposed changes to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iv), this cross-reference would not exist and would render this provision unworkable and less effective than counterpart Federal rules and statute. Therefore, we are not approving this proposed revision.
Montana proposes to retain similar language found in SMCRA section 519(c)(2) (30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(2)), which pertains to suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area and soil productivity for prime farmlands (subparts A and B), in its proposed statute. But Montana proposes to add a subpart C to this provision, stating: “The department shall retain a portion of the bond sufficient for a third party to fully satisfy remaining permit conditions if (C) the permittee has not successfully completed all reclamation activities, including water replacement, in the designated area”. As this section is the implied Phase II bond release section, Montana's addition of the subpart C language renders this provision less stringent than the Federal counterpart at section 519(c)(2) of the Act because the remaining bond held could be released if the permittee meets subparts A, B, and C (
Montana's proposed changes to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(v) are less stringent than counterpart Federal statute found in section 519(c)(3) (implied Phase III bond release requirements) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(3)). SMCRA again applies the period specified for operator responsibility (section 515(b)(20)(A) of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(20(A)). Federal counterpart rules at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(3) also apply this standard, and no bond can be released under this corresponding provision unless the period of operator responsibility has passed. Montana proposes to remove the period specified for operator responsibility in this section, rendering this provision less stringent than Federal counterpart statute in section 519(c)(3) of SMCRA and less effective than Federal counterpart rules at 30 CFR 800.40(c)(3). Therefore, we are not approving this proposed revision.
Montana proposes additions and revisions to the following rule, which contains language that is the same or similar to the corresponding sections of the Federal regulations and/or SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving the rule change to MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(i) related to Area Mining Required—Bond—Alternative Plan, which is a State counterpart to section 519(c)(2) (30 U.S.C. 1269(c)(2)) and 30 CFR 800.40(c)(2).
We asked for public comments on the amendment and received two. The first commenter raised general concerns with the development of fossil fuels on public lands and climate change. The second commenter was concerned generally about fossil fuel development and waterway pollution in Montana. These comments presented only generalized concerns that were beyond the scope of this proposed program amendment, which was focused on specific changes to the Montana State program. To the extent the proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” relates to the commenters concern about water pollution, we have denied this provision as not in accordance with SMCRA and inconsistent with the Federal regulations.
On February 21, 2023, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Montana program (Administrative Record No. MT-41-06). We did not receive any comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On August 5, 2021, we requested comments on the Montana amendment from the SHPO and the ACHP (Administrative Record Numbers MT-41-04 and MT-41-05, respectively). We did not receive any comments.
Based on the above findings, we are not approving, with one exception, Montana's submittal sent to us on February 16, 2023 (Administrative Record No. MT-041-01). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations, at 30 CFR part 926 that codify decisions concerning the Montana program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Section 503(a) of
This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in private property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the OSMRE's decision on State program amendments are exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this
This rule has potential Federalism implications as defined under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to “grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible” with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States. Montana, through its approved regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the State level. With one exception, this rule does not approve an amendment to the Montana program submitted and drafted by the State. A State program must set forth requirements that satisfy the Federal minimum standards and must include provisions that are no less stringent than SMCRA and no less effective than the Federal regulations.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Tribes. Therefore, consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on the Montana State program that does not include the regulation of Indian lands or regulation of activities on Indian lands as that term is defined in 30 U.S.C. 1291(9). Indian lands are regulated independently under the applicable, approved Federal Indian lands program, with the exception of the Crow Tribe's “Ceded Strip” in Montana, which represents a unique and special situation because under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the Department of the Interior and Montana agreed to coordinate the administration of applicable surface mining requirements in the Crow Ceded Strip. Even though, with one exception, we are not approving the amendment, our action will not have any significant effects on the regulation of surface coal mining operations within the Crow Ceded Strip. 512 Departmental Manual 4 (Department of the Interior Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes) also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses ancestral lands in areas with mineable coal. We are currently working to identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a constructive approach for consulting on these amendments. Our not approving, with one exception, the amendment is an action without tribal implications under section 4.3B of 512 Departmental Manual 4.
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), State program amendments are not major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 926 is amended as set forth below:
30 U.S.C. 1201
(c) The following portions of the program amendment by letter dated February 16, 2023, Administrative Record No. MT-041-01, which proposed changes to the Montana approved program as a result of the Montana Legislature's 2023 passage of a Senate Bill (SB 328) are not approved:
(1) Montana's proposed definition of “affected drainage basin” in MCA § 82-4-203(3).
(2) Montana's proposed definition recodifications in the MCA § 82-4-203(4)(a)—Alluvial Valley Floor, MCA § 82-4-203(5)—Approximate Original Contour, MCA § 82-4-203(6)—Aquifer, MCA § 82-4-203(7)—Area of Land Affected, MCA § 82-4-203(8)—Bench, MCA § 82-4-203(9)—Board, MCA § 82-4-203(10)—Coal Conservation Plan, MCA § 82-4-203(11)—Coal Preparation, MCA § 82-4-203(12)—Coal Preparation Plant, MCA § 82-4-203(13)—Contour Strip Mining, MCA § 82-4-203(14)—Cropland, MCA § 82-4-203(15)—Degree, MCA § 82-4-203(16)—Department, MCA § 82-4-203(17)—Developed Water Resources, MCA § 82-4-203(18)—Ephemeral Drainageway, MCA § 82-4-203(19)—Failure to Conserve Coal, MCA § 82-4-203(20)—Fill Bench, MCA § 82-4-203(21)—Fish and Wildlife Habitat, MCA § 82-4-203(22)—Forestry, MCA § 82-4-203(23)—Grazing Land, MCA § 82-4-203(24)—Higher or Better Uses, MCA § 82-4-203(25)—Hydrologic Balance, MCA § 82-4-203(26)—Imminent Danger to the Health and Safety of the Public, MCA § 82-4-203(27)—Industrial or Commercial, 82-4-203(28)—In situ Coal Gasification, MCA § 82-4-203(29)—Intermittent Stream, MCA § 82-4-203(30)—Land Use, MCA § 82-4-203(31)—Marketable Coal, MCA § 82-4-203(32)—Material Damage, MCA § 82-4-203(33)—Method of Operation, MCA § 82-4-203(34)—Mineable Coal, MCA § 82-4-203(35)—Mineral, MCA § 82-4-203(36)—Operation, MCA § 82-4-203(37)—Operator, MCA § 82-4-203(38)—Overburden, MCA § 82-4-203(39)—Pastureland, MCA § 82-4-203(40)—Perennial Stream, MCA § 82-4-203(41)—Person, MCA § 82-4-203(42)—Prime Farmland, MCA § 82-4-203(43)—Prospecting, MCA § 82-4-203(44)—Reclamation, MCA § 82-4-203(45)—Recovery Fluid, MCA § 82-4-203(46)—Recreation, MCA § 82-4-203(47)—Reference Area, MCA § 82-4-203(48)—Remining, MCA § 82-4-203(49)—Residential, MCA § 82-4-203(50)—Restore or Restoration, MCA § 82-4-203(51)—Strip Mining, MCA § 82-4-203(52)—Subsidence, MCA § 82-4-203(53)—Surface Owner, MCA § 82-4-203(54)—Topsoil, MCA § 82-4-203(55)—Underground Mining, MCA § 82-4-203(56)—Unwarranted Failure to Comply, MCA § 82-4-203(57)—Waiver, MCA § 82-4-203(58)—Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Feature, MCA § 82-4-203(59)—Written Consent.
(3) Montana's proposal to strike the words “if it is satisfied” from MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k).
(4) Montana's proposed changes to MCA at §§ 82-4-232(6)(k)(ii) and 82-4-232(6)(k)(iii).
(5) Montana's addition of subpart “C” language in MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(iv), which could allow for final bond release to occur in the phased bond release process normally reserved for reclamation activities associated with phase II bond release.
(6) Montana's proposed changes in the MCA § 82-4-232(6)(k)(v), which would remove the period specified for operator responsibility.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, between mile markers (MM) 461 to MM 473. This security zone is needed to provide waterside security and protection of persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service during a visit to Cincinnati, OH. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the security zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard representative.
This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on August 20, 2026, through 11:59 p.m. on August 24, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST1 Jean Jimenez Sosa, Marine Safety Detachment Cincinnati, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-815-7166, or email
The Coast Guard received notification that persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service will be visiting the city of Cincinnati, OH on August 20, 2026, through August 24, 2026. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that a security zone on the Ohio River is needed to protect the visiting dignitaries and other persons during this visit. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to provide waterside security and protection of the persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service in the navigable waters within the security zone.
Because of the potential threats associated with this visit, 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 and contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the Coast Guard was notified of this event on August 10, 2026, but we must establish this security zone by August 20, 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 reasons, 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 security zone from 12:01 a.m. on August 20, 2026, through 11:59 p.m. on August 24, 2026. The security zone will cover the entire width of the Ohio River, between mile markers (MM) 461 to MM 473. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. While this temporary regulation will be effective for five days, the security zone will only be enforced during certain times when visiting dignitaries and security personnel are present within the regulated area. The COTP will issue broadcast notice to mariners to inform the public of the specific enforcement times.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
This rule is a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, between mile markers (MM) 461 to MM 473.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section,
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 1 800-253-7465. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d) Enforcement period. This section is effective from 12:01 a.m. on August 20, 2026, through 11:59 p.m. on August 24, 2026. The security zone regulation will be enforced when visiting dignitaries and security personnel are present within the location described in paragraph (a). The COTP will issue broadcast notice to mariners to inform the public of the specific enforcement times for this temporary regulation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a portion of the navigable waters of Boston Inner Harbor, in the vicinity of Piers Park, East Boston, Massachusetts. The temporary safety zone is needed to protect the maritime public and event participants from potential hazards created by a swim event taking place in a heavily trafficked portion of the harbor scheduled for September 13, 2026. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Boston, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through noon on September 13, 2026.
To view available documents, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Timothy W. Chase, Sector Boston, Waterways Management, telephone (617) 447-1620, email
On July 13, 2026, the Coast Guard received notification that a swim event would be taking place in a heavily trafficked portion of Boston Inner Harbor in the vicinity of Piers Park, East Boston, Massachusetts. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with this swim event, such as collisions between swimmers and watercraft, are a safety concern for anyone within the designated event area. 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.
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. We do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments, and publish a final rule by September 13, 2026.
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 7 a.m. through noon on September 13, 2026. The safety zone will cover all the navigable waters of a portion of Boston Inner Harbor in the vicinity of Piers Park, East Boston, specifically within a box bound by the following coordinates: Corner #1 42°21′41.22″ N, 071°2′22.6″ W, thence to Corner #2 42°21′26.53″ N, 071°2′32.28″ W, thence to Corner #3 42°21′2.59″ N, 071°1′32.92″ W, thence to Corner #4 42°21′13.14″ N, 071°1′24.6″ W, and returning to the point of origin. Positions provided are expressed in Degrees (°) Minutes (′) Seconds (″) (DMS) based on North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to protect event participants and support personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the swim event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
Requests to enter the zone will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at (856) 416-3015 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.
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).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under 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. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 or by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Boston Command Center at (857) 416-3015. 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.
(3) The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the regulated area as well as any changes of the enforcement times through local notice to mariners, Broadcast Notices to Mariners, or both, via VHF-FM marine channel 16.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for certain navigable waters of the Philippine Sea in the Pacific Ocean in Apra Harbor, Guam. The Coast Guard will only enforce this rule when the United States government officials or other persons under the protection of the Secret Service are present or expected to be present. This action is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam.
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. ChST on August 27, 2026 through 4 p.m. ChST on August 27, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice by Marine Broadcast will be used from 0900-1600 August 27, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MSTC Laurel Siegrist, Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 671-686-0092, or email
The Coast Guard was requested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide a security zone for an official DHS visit to include a multi asset tactical exercise. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam has determined that a security zone is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the security of vessels and navigable waters during the visit to USCG Station Apra Harbor and the waters of Apra Harbor by the United States government officials and other persons under the protection of the Secret Service.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and comment under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by August 27, 2026. This short timeframe makes it impracticable to publish an NPRM and receive and respond to public comments.
For the same reasons, 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 temporary security zone from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ChST on August 27, 2026. The security zone will cover all navigable waters of the Philippine Sea in a moving circle with a radius extending 250 yards from each Coast Guard vessel participating in the exercise area within Apra Harbor, Guam. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) over VHF marine radio on channel 16. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other events of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam.
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
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. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule involves a security zone lasting up to seven hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security 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 (671) 355-4824. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of carboxin in or on multiple crops that are discussed later in this document. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), UPL Delaware Inc. submitted a petition to EPA requesting that EPA establish a maximum permissible level for residues of this pesticide in or on the identified commodities.
This regulation is effective August 21, 2026. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 20, 2026 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of this document).
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0455, is available at
Charles Smith, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0455 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 20, 2026.
EPA's Administrative Law Judges Division (ALJD), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,” dated December 3, 2025, which can be found at
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at
In the
The September 29, 2025 notice of filing supersedes two earlier notices of filing published in the
EPA received one comment in response to the September 29, 2025, notice of filing expressing concerns that pesticide use is linked to cancer and other chronic diseases and any “exemption” should rarely be allowed outside of uses tied to national security. EPA also received one comment in response to the September 12, 2023, notice of filing expressing concerns about pesticide residues in food and their connection to resistance and allergic reactions.
The Agency acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding potential health effects associated with pesticide use. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish a tolerance when it determines that the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data, as well as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined that the carboxin tolerances established in this action are safe. The commenters provided no information supporting the conclusion that these tolerances are not safe.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for carboxin, including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with carboxin follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicity database for carboxin is adequate, with the exception of a subchronic inhalation toxicity study. In subchronic and chronic feeding studies in rats with carboxin, the kidney was the primary target organ with effects including chronic progressive nephropathy and histopathological changes showing increased incidence and severity with time. For dogs and mice, the primary target organ appeared to be the liver. The developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the reproduction study in rats with carboxin indicated no increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of the fetuses or pups, as compared to adults. In the carcinogenicity study in mice with carboxin, dose-related increases in the incidence of liver centrilobular hypertrophy were observed; however, this is considered to be an adaptive rather than an adverse response. Carboxin is classified as “Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the lack of evidence of
Although no high temperature hydrolysis data is available for carboxin, the chemical structure of carboxin suggests that the release of aniline may occur following the processing of carboxin-treated crop commodities. Aniline may be a potential degradation product of carboxin in cooked food, but it is toxicologically different from carboxin. EPA has classified aniline as a B2-probable human carcinogen with an oral cancer slope factor of 5.7 × 10
Specific information on the risk assessment conducted in support of this action, including on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by carboxin and aniline, can be found in the document titled “Carboxin: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Use of Liquid Formulations on Dried Shelled Peas; to Establish a Tolerance for Residues in/on Vegetable, legume, pulse, pea, dried shelled, subgroup 6-22F and Vegetable, Legume, Forage and Hay, Except Soybean, Subgroup 7-22A; to Convert the Existing Tolerance for Residues in/on Bean, Dry, Seed Tolerance to Vegetable, legume, pulse, bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6-22E; and to Allow a 0-Day Plantback Interval for Vegetable, Legume, Pulse, Pea, Dried Shelled, Subgroup 6-22F in Conjunction with a Tolerance on this Crop Subgroup” (hereinafter “Carboxin Human Health Risk Assessment”) which is available in the docket for this action.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level, generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose, and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for carboxin and aniline used for human health risk assessment can be found in the Carboxin Human Health Risk Assessment, which is available in the docket for this action.
In evaluating dietary exposure to carboxin and aniline, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing carboxin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.301. EPA assessed dietary exposures from carboxin and aniline in food as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
Buprofezin is applied as a broadcast foliar application on a variety of food crops with the maximum seasonal application rates ranging from 0.7 to 4.0 pounds of active ingredient per acre per growing season. Tolerances established for residues of buprofezin in or on various food commodities range from 0.02 to 80 ppm, with most tolerances greater than 0.2 ppm. Buprofezin residue data indicate that there is a proportion of buprofezin residues in or on food crops that is available for conversion to aniline during food processing that is subjected to high temperature cooking conditions. A highly refined cancer dietary exposure and risk assessment for buprofezin-derived aniline residues was conducted for cooked food only using an oral cancer slope factor (Q
Any dietary exposure to carboxin-derived aniline residues in cooked foods are expected to be significantly lower than buprofezin-derived aniline residues based on carboxin's limited use patterns and lower tolerance-level residues. Carboxin is used for pre-planting seed treatment, with low maximum application rates ranging from 0.005 to 0.825 pounds of active ingredient per acre per year. Carboxin residues in or on certain food crops were non-detectable or below the limit of quantitation (LOQ) based on field trials conducted at exaggerated use rates. Residue data for other food crops indicate that there was not much carboxin residue, at the most less than 0.025 to less than 0.2 ppm, available for conversion to aniline during food processing that is subjected to high temperature cooking conditions. Tolerances established for residues of carboxin in or on various food commodities, including the tolerances established in this action, range from 0.03 to 0.2 ppm, with several tolerances at 0.2 ppm. The LOQ of the residue data collection method was 0.025 ppm, whereas the LOQ of the enforcement analytical methods was 0.2 ppm, indicating that many of the tolerances at 0.2 ppm would be much lower if not for the limitation of the enforcement analytical methods. These low residue levels can be attributed to carboxin's limited used patterns.
The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for carboxin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of carboxin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
For surface water, estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) were modeled using Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC) (version 1.52) for seed treatment of all labeled crops except rice. EDWCs for rice seed treatment use were modeled by Pesticide in Flooded Applications Model Version 2. For groundwater, EDWCs were modeled using PWC and the six standard groundwater scenarios at the maximum application rate of 0.825 lb a.i./A/yr for registered crops. The highest post breakthrough average EDWC for carboxin residues of concern (
For aniline, the Agency has determined that there is no expectation of carboxin-derived aniline residues in drinking water.
The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (
Carboxin is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure to carboxin or carboxin-derived aniline.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to carboxin and any other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that carboxin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
The developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the reproduction study in rats with carboxin indicated no increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of the fetuses or pups, as compared to adults. In the developmental toxicity studies in rats for carboxin, no adverse effects were observed in either the dams or the fetuses. In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, abortions were observed at 750 mg/kg/day on GDs 27-28. The abortions are considered to be both maternal and developmental adverse effects. In a two-generation reproduction study with carboxin in rats, the reproductive effects (decreased fertility indices in F
EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA safety factor were reduced to 1X for dietary exposure scenarios. The current action does not have residential uses; if any future actions have residential uses, then the FQPA safety factor would also be 1X for all residential/non-occupational exposure scenarios, with the exception of inhalation scenarios due to the lack of a subchronic inhalation toxicity study. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. With the exception of a subchronic inhalation toxicity study, the toxicity database for carboxin is adequate for FQPA evaluation. Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats with carboxin are available for FQPA consideration.
ii. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the existing toxicity database. No guideline acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies were submitted; however, no indications of neurotoxic effects were observed in any of the subchronic or chronic studies in dogs, mice, or rats. Based on a Weight-of-Evidence approach, EPA determined that the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are not required at this time.
iii. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits or rats with carboxin.
iv. There is no residual uncertainty with respect to the dietary exposure database. A conservative chronic dietary (food and water) risk assessment was conducted for carboxin incorporating tolerance-level residues, EPA's default processing factors, 100 PCT, and the highest EDWCs. There are no residential uses for carboxin. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by carboxin.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, carboxin is not expected to pose an acute risk, and an acute aggregate risk assessment is not required.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to carboxin from food and drinking water will utilize 87% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for carboxin. Therefore, chronic aggregate exposures and risk estimates are equivalent to the chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk estimates. These risks are not of concern.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Carboxin is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, short- and intermediate-term risk is equal to chronic dietary risk, which is not of concern.
Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, carboxin is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans,” and quantification of cancer risk is not required.
There are no data to determine an acute endpoint for aniline at this time; hence, an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted for carboxin-derived aniline residues. The highly refined estimated chronic exposure of the most highly exposed adult subpopulation (adults 50 to 99 years old) to buprofezin-derived aniline residues is 0.000052 mg/kg/day. Estimated chronic exposures to buprofezin-derived aniline residues are orders of magnitude below any potential chronic non-cancer reference dose for aniline. Any chronic exposures to carboxin-derived aniline residues are expected to be significantly lower than to buprofezin-derived aniline residues based on carboxin's limited use patterns and lower tolerance-level residues. Therefore, a quantitative chronic non-cancer dietary risk assessment for carboxin-derived aniline residues is not necessary to conclude with reasonable certainty that chronic exposures from carboxin-derived aniline residues do not pose a non-cancer dietary risk. The highly refined estimated chronic exposure of the most highly exposed adult subpopulation to buprofezin-derived aniline results in an upper bound cancer risk estimate of 3 × 10
Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to carboxin residues.
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II lists three methods for determining the combined residues of carboxin and its metabolites,
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex has not established MRLs for carboxin in or on any commodities.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of carboxin, 5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-
Additional information about these statutes and executive orders can be found at
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerance actions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2026
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Labor publishes this final rule to revise its implementing regulations for the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (VEVRAA). These revisions will align the regulations with Executive Order 14173 and remove the VEVRAA regulations' cross-references to the Executive Order 11246 authority. Executive Order 11246 was revoked by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025. This final rule also makes technical revisions to update the VEVRAA regulations' jurisdictional thresholds, which were adjusted for inflation by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council on October 1, 2025.
This rule is effective September 21, 2026.
Kenneth Wolfe, Director, OFCCP, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) enforces VEVRAA, 38 U.S.C. 4212, and its implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 60-300. VEVRAA, as applied by regulation, prohibits Federal contractors and subcontractors (contractors)
The basic requirements in VEVRAA generally apply to any business or organization that holds a single Federal contract or subcontract of at least $200,000.
Prior to January 21, 2025, DOL administered and enforced Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended (Executive Order 11246), Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503), and VEVRAA. On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025). Executive Order 14173 revoked Executive Order 11246. Executive Order 11246, and its implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 60-1
While VEVRAA remains in effect, the revocation of Executive Order 11246 necessitates several revisions to the VEVRAA implementing regulations. On July 1, 2025, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
DOL also proposed removal of a reference to 41 CFR part 60-3 because this citation is part of the revoked Executive Order 11246 authority. Additionally, DOL proposed removal of the 29 U.S.C. 793 reference in the authority citation for 41 CFR part 60-300. The 29 U.S.C. 793 reference refers to the Section 503 authority and is unnecessary.
Further, effective October 1, 2025, the coverage threshold under VEVRAA increased from $150,000 to $200,000, in accordance with the inflationary adjustment requirements in 41 U.S.C. 1908.
The NPRM originally provided for a 60-day comment period, scheduled to close on September 2, 2025. After receiving comments requesting an extension of the comment period, DOL extended the comment period until September 17, 2025.
DOL received numerous comments on its proposal to relocate the administrative proceeding procedures formerly contained in the Executive Order 11246 regulations into the VEVRAA implementing regulations. Several commenters supported this proposal, stating that conforming the regulatory structure in this manner is reasonable and appropriate following the revocation of Executive Order 11246. These commenters noted that consolidating the applicable procedures within the VEVRAA regulations would improve regulatory clarity and transparency regarding the procedures governing enforcement of VEVRAA. Other commenters recommended that DOL modify or eliminate the administrative proceeding procedures because of recent case law challenging the use of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) by Federal agencies.
In any event, these developments do not affect DOL's decision here. This final rule does not expand DOL's remedial authority, create new causes of action, or establish new enforcement mechanisms. It merely relocates the existing procedural provisions after the revocation of Executive Order 11246. To the extent future judicial decisions clarify the constitutional status of DOL's ALJs, clarify the application of
Some commenters expressed general support for the VEVRAA regulations without addressing specific issues discussed in the NPRM. Other commenters raised issues unrelated to the proposed changes, such as recommending the removal of the show cause notice procedures from 41 CFR 60-300.62, recommending the removal of AAP requirements contained in the regulations, or requiring a barrier analysis when contractors are below the VEVRAA hiring benchmark, described at 41 CFR 60-300.45, for two consecutive years. DOL is not addressing these comments in the final rule as they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. If DOL determines that additional regulatory changes may be necessary, then DOL may pursue those changes in a separate rulemaking.
For the reasons stated above, the final rule adopts the various changes proposed in the NPRM, which include each of the following: moving the administrative proceeding procedures directly into the VEVRAA regulations, specifically into 41 CFR 60-300.65(c) through (mm), except where duplicative of current part 60-300 provisions; removing the cross-reference to the Executive Order 11246 administrative proceeding procedures found in 41 CFR 60-300.65(b); removing the reference to 41 CFR part 60-3, which was included in 41 CFR 60-300.21(g)(2); and removing the unnecessary 29 U.S.C. 793 reference included in the authority citation for 41 CFR 60-300. The final rule also includes the recent inflationary adjustments to the VEVRAA jurisdictional thresholds. As detailed above, DOL has found good cause to implement the inflationary adjustments without notice and comment because the adjustments are minor and technical amendments that were previously subject to notice and comment through
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of Executive Order 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. In accordance with Executive Order 12866, DOL has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule makes technical and conforming amendments that align regulatory text with existing requirements. It imposes no new obligations. The adjustment to the jurisdictional threshold increases the contract value required for coverage under VEVRAA from $150,000 to $200,000. Because the increased threshold exceeds a pure inflation adjustment, DOL expects that fewer contractors will be subject to the relevant VEVRAA regulatory requirements, resulting in reduced compliance burdens. Accordingly, the rule has a deregulatory effect. DOL lacks data to determine how many contractors will no longer be covered as a result of this change, but DOL expects the number to be small given the incremental nature of the threshold increase. This rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
DOL reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This final rule provides regulatory certainty to contractors and other stakeholders by aligning the regulations with the most recent executive orders and inflationary adjustments. As discussed above, the revisions are technical in nature, and do not impose any new requirements for covered entities. The increase in the jurisdictional threshold reduces the number of entities subject to the regulations. DOL lacks data to determine how many small entities will no longer be covered, but DOL expects the number to be small given the incremental nature of the threshold increase. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that the impacts of the final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOL will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This final rule imposes no new information or recordkeeping requirements and does not impact current information collections. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. Executive Order 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
DOL has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Sec. 201, Public Law 104-4 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.
DOL examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this final rule under the OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
DOL has examined this final rule and determined that it does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact statement. It does not “have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.”
DOL has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in Executive Order14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (see “Background” discussion regarding E.O. 14173). As noted above, this rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Investigations, Labor, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 4212, as amended, DOL amends 41 CFR part 60-300 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 4211 and 4212; E.O. 11758 (3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 841).
(b)
(f)
(o)
(p)
(aa)
(a)
(2)
(a) * * *
(11) The contractor will include the provisions of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order of $200,000 or more, unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary issued pursuant to VEVRAA so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, may direct to enforce such provisions, including action for noncompliance.
(g) * * *
(2) The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures do not apply to 38 U.S.C. 4212 and are similarly inapplicable to this part.
(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to every Government contractor that has 50 or more employees and a contract of $200,000 or more.
(a)
(2) In addition to the administrative proceedings set forth in this section, the Director may, within the limitations of applicable law, seek appropriate judicial action to enforce the contractual provisions set forth in § 60-300.5, including appropriate injunctive relief.
(b)
(2) Complaints may be filed by the Solicitor, the Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and Labor-Management, Regional Solicitors, and Associate Regional Solicitors.
(3) [Reserved]
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(2)
(i) Contain a statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and shall specifically admit, explain, or deny, each of the allegations of the complaint unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or
(ii) State that the defendant admits all the allegations of the complaint. The answer may contain a waiver of hearing; and if not, a separate paragraph in the answer shall request a hearing. The answer shall contain the name and address of the defendant, or of the attorney representing the defendant. Failure to file an answer or to plead specifically to any allegation of the complaint shall constitute an admission of such allegation.
(3)
(i)
(j)
(2)
(k)
(2)
(i) Denying specifically the matter as to which an admission is requested; or
(ii) Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny such matters.
(3)
(l)
(2) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to permit entry upon designated property which may be relevant to the issues in the proceeding and, which is in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection, measuring, surveying or photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or area.
(3) Each request shall set forth with reasonable particularity the items to be inspected and shall specify a reasonable time and place for making the inspection and performing the related acts.
(4) The party upon whom the request is served shall respond within 25 days after the service of the request. The response shall state, with respect to each item, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless there are objections, in which case the reasons for each objection shall be stated. The party submitting the request may move for an order with respect to any objection or to other failure to respond.
(m)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.
(ii) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or was designated to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency which is a party may be used by the adverse party for any purpose.
(iii) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the administrative law judge finds:
(A) That the witness is dead; or
(B) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or
(C) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure
(D) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable to allow the deposition to be used.
(iv) If only part of a deposition is introduced in evidence by a party, any party may introduce any other parts by way of rebuttal and otherwise.
(6)
(n)
(i) Simplification of the issues;
(ii) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitation;
(iii) Stipulations, admissions of fact and of contents and authenticity of documents;
(iv) Limitation of number of witnesses;
(v) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
(vi) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceedings.
(2) The record shall show the matters disposed of by order and by agreement in such pretrial conferences. The subsequent course of the proceeding shall be controlled by such action.
(o)
(2)
(i) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
(ii) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;
(iii) That any further procedural steps are waived; and
(iv) That any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement is waived.
(3)
(i) Submit the proposed agreement to the Administrative Law Judge for his consideration;
(ii) Inform the Administrative Law Judge that agreement cannot be reached.
(4)
(p)
(q)
(1) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding by consent of the parties or upon his own motion;
(2) Require parties to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding;
(3) Require parties to produce for examination those relevant witnesses and documents under their control; and require parties to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions in full;
(4) Administer oaths;
(5) Rule on motions, and other procedural items or matters pending before him;
(6) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of participants therein;
(7) Examine and cross-examine witnesses, and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;
(8) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence and limit lines of questioning or testimony which are irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious;
(9) Fix time limits for submission of written documents in matters before him and extend any time limits established by this part upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby;
(10) Impose appropriate sanctions against any party or person failing to obey an order under these rules which may include:
(i) Refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting it from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(ii) Excluding all testimony of an unresponsive or evasive witness, or determining that the answer of such witness, if given, would be unfavorable to the party having control over him; and
(iii) Expelling any party or person from further participation in the hearing;
(11) Take official notice of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice;
(12) Recommend whether the respondent is in current violation of the order, regulations, or its contractual obligations, as well as the nature of the relief necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights secured by the order;
(13) Issue subpoenas; and
(14) Take any action authorized by these rules.
(r)
(2)
(s)
(2) It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Due regard shall be given to the convenience of witnesses in scheduling their testimony so that they will be detained no longer than reasonably necessary.
(3) The party or prospective witness may file an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness.
(t)
(u)
(2)
(3)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(z)
(2) Other persons or organizations shall have the right to participate as parties if the final Administrative order could adversely affect them or the class they represent, and such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the proceedings.
(3) Any person or organization wishing to participate as a party under this section shall file with the Administrative Law Judge and serve on all parties a petition within 25 days after the commencement of the action or at such other time as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) Petitioner's interest in the proceedings;
(ii) who will appear for petitioner;
(iii) the issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
(iv) whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether each petitioner has the requisite interest in the proceedings and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interest, the Administrative Law Judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative to represent all such petitioners:
(5) Any other interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae shall file a petition before the commencement of the final hearing with the Administrative Law Judge. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) The petitioner's interest in the hearing;
(ii) who will represent the petitioner; and
(iii) the issues on which petitioner intends to present argument. The Administrative Law Judge may grant the petition if he finds that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, and that such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the issues. An amicus curiae is not a party but may participate as provided in this section.
(6) An amicus curiae may present a brief oral statement at the hearing at the point in the proceeding specified by the Administrative Law Judge. He may submit a written statement of position to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the beginning of a hearing and shall serve a copy on each party. He may also submit a brief or written statement at such time as the parties submit briefs and exceptions, and he shall serve a copy on each party.
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
(2) The answer shall be filed in accordance with paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
(3) Failure to request a hearing within the 20 days provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall constitute a waiver of hearing, and all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted. If a hearing is not requested or is waived, within 25 days of the complaint's filing, the Administrative Law Judge shall adopt as findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint, and shall order the appropriate sanctions and/or penalties sought in the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge's findings and order shall constitute a final Administrative order, unless the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions to the findings and order within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions, the matter shall proceed in accordance with paragraph (ll) of this section.
(4) If a request for a hearing is received within 20 days as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this section, the hearing shall be convened within 45 days of receipt of the request and shall be completed within 15 days thereafter, unless more hearing time is required.
(ii)
(2) Witness lists and hearing exhibits will be exchanged at least 10 days in advance of the hearing.
(3) For good cause shown, and upon motion made in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section, the Administrative Law Judge may allow the taking of depositions. Other discovery will not be permitted.
(jj)
(2) The hearing shall be informal in nature, and the Administrative Law Judge shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.
(kk)
(ll)
(mm)
(a)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure for the commercial harvest of blueline tilefish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS estimates that commercial landings of blueline tilefish will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the 2026 fishing year. Accordingly, NMFS closes the commercial sector of blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic EEZ to protect the blueline tilefish resource from overfishing.
This temporary rule is effective from August 24, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Michelle Walsh, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights in this temporary rule are given in round weight.
The regulation codified at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) specifies the commercial ACL and in-season accountability measure for blueline tilefish in the South Atlantic. The commercial ACL is 117,148 pounds (53,137 kilograms). NMFS is required to close the commercial sector of blueline tilefish when NMFS projects that commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL. NMFS projects that the commercial ACL will have been reached by August 24, 2026. Accordingly, the commercial sector of South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed from August 24, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited and harvest or possession of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the closure of the blueline tilefish commercial sector at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect blueline tilefish, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the commercial ACL.
For the reasons already stated, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial harvest of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex in South Atlantic Federal waters. NMFS projects that commercial landings of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for 2026. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex in South Atlantic Federal waters to protect the scamp and yellowmouth grouper resource from overfishing.
This temporary rule is effective from August 24, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Karla Gore, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes scamp and yellowmouth grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights in this temporary rule are in round weight.
The final rule for Amendment 55 to the FMP was effective on July 6, 2026, and among other measures, created a new scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex (91 FR 33661, June 4, 2026). The commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex for the 2026 fishing year is 46,147 pounds (20,932
During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of scamp and yellowmouth grouper is prohibited and harvest and possession of scamp and yellowmouth grouper in or from South Atlantic Federal waters is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits. These bag and possession limits apply in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter/vessel headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(i)(1)(i), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial closure of the scamp and yellowmouth grouper complex have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the commercial closure to protect the scamp and yellowmouth grouper resource in the South Atlantic. The capacity of the commercial fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL, and any delay in the closure could result in the exceedance of the applicable ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial ACL.
For the reasons just stated, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure for red snapper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects that commercial landings of red snapper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the 2026 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for red snapper in the South Atlantic EEZ. This closure is necessary to protect the red snapper resource.
This temporary rule is effective from August 24, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 727-824-5305,
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes red snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS, and was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The regulations codified at 50 CFR 622.193(y)(1) specify the commercial ACL and the commercial accountability measures (AM) for South Atlantic red snapper. The commercial ACL is 102,951 pounds (46,698 kilograms), round weight. The commercial AM states that NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for red snapper when NMFS projects that commercial landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL. NMFS projects that the commercial ACL will have been reached by August 24, 2026. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic red snapper is closed from August 24, 2026, through December 31, 2026, the end of the current fishing year. Unless NMFS specifies otherwise, the commercial season for red snapper in the 2027 fishing year will begin on the second Monday in July (50 CFR 622.183(b)(5)(i)).
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper with red snapper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such red snapper prior to August 24, 2026.
During the commercial closure for South Atlantic red snapper, all sale or purchase of red snapper is prohibited. This prohibition on the harvest, possession, sale, or purchase of red snapper applies in the South Atlantic on a vessel issued a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, regardless if such fish were harvested or possessed in State or Federal waters (50 CFR 622.181(c)(2) and 622.193(y)(1)).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(y)(1), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule that established the commercial AM for red snapper has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to
For the reasons just stated, there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; possession limit adjustment.
NMFS is closing the directed
Effective 0001 hr local time on August 23, 2026, through 2400 hr local time on December 31, 2026.
Maria Fenton, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9196.
Regulations implementing the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart B. The regulations at § 648.22 describe the specifications that must be set annually for the fisheries managed under the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. For the
The regulations at § 648.24(a)(2) require NMFS to close the directed
Based on vessel reports, dealer reports, and other available information, the Regional Administrator projected that 96 percent of the
Also, effective 0001 hr local time on August 23, 2026, through 2400 hr local time on December 31, 2026, federally permitted dealers may not purchase, possess, or receive for a commercial purpose or attempt to purchase, possess, or receive for a commercial purpose, more than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This action is required by § 648.24(a)(2), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The public had prior notice and opportunity to comment on the 2026
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2026 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This adjustment to the 2026 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2026
Effective August 20, 2026, through December 31, 2026.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2026 allocations were published on February 19, 2026 (91 FR 7896).
The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 2,435 pounds (lb; 1,104 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to Massachusetts through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2026 are: North Carolina, 2,899,571 lb (1,315,223 kg); and Massachusetts, 1,048,732 lb (475,697 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to withdraw the international airport designation of Chalk Seaplane Base, now operating as Miami Seaplane Base. This proposal is based on evidence that the facility at this location has not been in compliance with CBP regulatory and security standards and the amount of business clearing through the airport does not justify continued maintenance of inspection equipment and personnel. The proposed change is part of CBP's continued efforts to use its personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the public.
Send comments on or before October 20, 2026.
Please submit comments, identified by docket number [USCBP-2026-0892], by the following method:
•
Joshua Serian, Special Advisor, Facilities and Tech Division, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, by phone at 202-713-8649 or email at
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the notice of proposed rulemaking. CBP also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposal. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
Section 402 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2142, as amended (HSA) (6 U.S.C. 202), sets forth the responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), including, in pertinent part, securing the borders, ports, and air transportation systems of the United States, including managing and coordinating those functions transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at ports of entry; carrying out certain immigration enforcement functions transferred to DHS; and administering the customs laws of the United States.
Additionally, the Secretary is charged with the administration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as those laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic consular officers.
The airports designated for arriving aircraft under the authorities described above are known as “international airports.”
For purposes of the administration of the customs laws, such designated international airports are listed in 19 CFR 122.13 and are open to all aircraft for entry and clearance at no charge by CBP, as detailed in 19 CFR 122.12, along with other operational requirements. Each designated international airport must provide, without cost to the Federal Government, proper office and other space as detailed in 19 CFR 122.11(c). The following reasons for withdrawal of the designation as an international airport are set forth in 19 CFR 122.11(b): (1) the amount of business clearing through the airport does not justify maintenance of inspection equipment and personnel; (2) proper facilities are not provided or maintained by the airport; (3) the rules and regulations of the Federal Government are not followed; or (4) some other location would be more useful.
For purposes of the administration of immigration laws, such designated international airports are described in 8 CFR 234.4 and listed in 8 CFR 100.4(b). Each designated international airport must provide adequate facilities at such airport without cost to the Federal Government for the proper inspection and disposition of aliens, including office space and such temporary detention quarters as may be found necessary, as detailed in 8 CFR 234.4. Pursuant to 8 CFR 234.4, the designation of an airport as an international airport for the entry of aliens may be withdrawn whenever, in the judgment of the Commissioner of CBP, there appears just cause for such action.
DHS and CBP are proposing to remove Chalk Seaplane Base, now operating as Miami Seaplane Base (CSB),
In 1926, Chalks Airline built CSB on Watson Island, in Biscayne Bay, near the city of Miami, Florida, and was authorized to operate CSB by the City of Miami. CSB was added to the list of international airports for arriving aliens then codified at the former 8 CFR 231.6 on December 19, 1952 (17 FR 11469, 11501), and to the list of customs international airports in 19 CFR 122.13, on March 22, 1988 (53 FR 9292, 9295). Beginning in approximately 1929, Chalks Airline and other airlines operated flights to and from CSB, including international flights. Chalks Airline ceased flight operations in 2007 when the U.S. Department of Transportation revoked the airline's flight authority due to safety issues, and Chalks Airline has not operated flights since that time. However, Chalks Airline still possessed the rights to operate CSB. In 2012, Nautilus Enterprises purchased Chalks Airline and, with it, the rights to operate CSB. Until May 2021, CBP processed passengers for customs and immigration purposes for up to 11 flights at CSB, on a weekly basis. The flights typically originated from the Bahamas and contained about five passengers each. During that time, CBP officers traveled from the Miami Seaport, located three miles away from CSB, to process passengers at CSB. Beginning in 2013, CBP engaged in several rounds of communication with CSB management regarding CSB's facilities that did not meet CBP's regulatory criteria for safety and security relating to inspectional activities and low passenger volume. Due to CSB's continued failure to provide a compliant facility, CBP began denying all aircraft traveling from foreign areas permission to land at CSB starting in May 2021, as discussed below. The airport still exists and operates for non-international flights. All international flights use nearby aviation facilities such as Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International and Miami International airports for CBP processing.
The facilities at CSB do not meet CBP's compliance standards as required in 8 CFR 234.4 and 19 CFR 122.11(b), despite repeated requests by CBP to the President of Chalks Airline, as the manager in charge of operations at CSB, to provide adequate space. After multiple rounds of communication between Chalks Airline and CBP regarding the noncompliant facility, on August 6, 2019, CBP sent the President of Chalks Airline a formal notice stating that CSB must provide a compliant facility within 12 months. CBP explained that if a compliant facility was not provided during this time, all passengers and crewmembers would be transported under safeguard to Port of Miami facilities for processing, at the expense of the operator. Chalks Airline confirmed receipt of this notice in October 2019, during conversations with CBP, but ultimately did not commit to providing compliant facilities. On March 2, 2020, CBP notified Chalks Airline that the transportation of passengers and crewmembers to Port of Miami facilities under safeguard would not be allowed after November 4, 2020, citing ongoing safety and security concerns. CBP stated that, after this date, CBP would deny permission to land to all aircraft operators seeking to land at CSB from any foreign area, until CSB provides and maintains a compliant facility. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this deadline was not enforced until 2021. On April 15, 2021, CBP sent Chalks Airline a
In April 2022, Chalks Airline stated that it had not started constructing a compliant facility and that it would be about two years until the facility would be complete. No progress has been made to date. Chalks Airline has repeatedly provided to CBP over the past five years an artistic rendition of the proposed new terminal. However, CBP has continued to state that the layout of this facility is still not compliant with the 2021 CBP Airport Terminal Design Standard. Therefore, CSB continues to violate the requirements of 8 CFR 234.4 and 19 CFR 122.11(b)(2) and (c).
Even if Chalks Airline provided a compliant facility for CBP processing, there are not enough passengers traveling through CSB to warrant an international airport designation. The applicable customs regulations for the designation of international airports state that the designation may be withdrawn because the amount of business clearing through the airport does not justify maintenance of inspection equipment and personnel. 19 CFR 122.11(b)(1). As stated above, before 2021, CBP was only processing about 55 passengers weekly at CSB from only one international destination: the Bahamas. Furthermore, Miami International Airport is only three miles from CSB, offering a reasonable alternative to flights that would have otherwise been processed at CSB. Further, as noted above, designation as an international airport for entry of aliens may be withdrawn if the Commissioner of CBP finds just cause for such withdrawal.
For the aforementioned reasons, CBP is proposing to amend the regulations to remove “Chalk Seaplane Base” from the lists of designated international airports for immigration and customs purposes in 8 CFR 100.4(b) and 19 CFR 122.13. Revocation of the international airport designation would not result in any significant reduction in CBP services in the area, as there are two suitable international airports nearby, Miami International Airport and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
On November 25, 2025, the Secretary of DHS notified Congress of DHS's intention to remove the designation of Chalk Seaplane Base, fulfilling the congressional notification requirements of 19 U.S.C. 2075(g)(2) and section 417 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 217).
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This rule is an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action because this rule clarifies the regulations by removing a CBP port of entry from the codified lists of designated airports that has not been in use for CBP processing of international arrivals as of May 2021. Doing so eliminates public confusion for those who consult the regulations for a list of ports they may use. As this port has not been in use for several years, CBP believes the savings from eliminating the rule to be negligible and does not estimate any monetized savings associated with this deregulatory action.
As of May 2021, CBP has stopped the processing of arrivals at CSB due to the noncompliant nature of the facility and insufficient traveler volume. Instead, seaplanes now land at either Miami International Airport or Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Both Miami International and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International airports have facilities that meet CBP safety and inspection criteria. CBP is proposing to remove CSB from the lists of international airports in 8 CFR 100.4(b) and 19 CFR 122.13 and continue the processing of arrivals associated with Chalks Airline at the nearby facilities. CBP will not process any future arrivals at CSB, even in the absence of this rule, as the facility is not safe for CBP's operations, and the seaplane base operator had more than five years to correct the deficiencies and did not do so.
Since CSB does not meet safety and security requirements for safe CBP operations, CBP will continue to process seaplane arrivals at either Miami International Airport or Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The effect of this proposed rule would be simply to update the CFR to reflect the current list of international airports in operation. CBP thus does not anticipate that this proposed rule would have any costs. Passengers will continue to land and disembark at either Miami International Airport or Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport for processing and will be unaffected by this rule. Since airplanes already land at Miami International Airport and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, there is no change from the baseline for these facilities either. Therefore, the economic cost on all parties is expected to be zero.
This proposed rule would remove an airport not used for international flights for several years from the lists of international airports in the regulations. To the extent that this alleviates public confusion, this proposed rule would have a minor transparency benefit.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that CBP consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. There is no new collection of information required in this document; therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act are inapplicable.
The amendment to part 100 of title 8 of the CFR is proposed under the authority of 8 U.S.C. 1103, 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458), and 8 CFR part 2.
The amendment to part 122 of title 19 of the CFR is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1415, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, and 2071 note.
The signing authority for the proposed amendment to an immigration port of entry under title 8 of the CFR is governed by Section 441 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended (6 U.S.C. 251).
The signing authority for the proposed amendment to a customs port of entry under title 19 of the CFR falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a).
Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking is signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Cigars and cigarettes, Cuba, Drug traffic control, Freight, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend 8 CFR part 100 and 19 CFR part 122 as set forth below:
8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 8 CFR part 2.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1415, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.
Section 122.22 is also issued under 46 U.S.C. 60105.
Section 122.48b also issued under 49 U.S.C. 44901 note.
Section 122.49a also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 49 U.S.C. 44909.
Section 122.49b also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 49 U.S.C. 114, 44909.
Section 122.49c also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 49 U.S.C. 114, 44909.
Section 122.49d also issued under 49 U.S.C. 44909(c)(3).
Section 122.75a also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431.
Section 122.75b also issued under 8 U.S.C. 1221, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 49 U.S.C. 114.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to amend its regulation governing genealogy program related records requests to revise its genealogy program regulations to clarify the impact of statutory and regulatory federal records requirements. This is necessary for individuals who request immigration records through the agency's genealogy program to better understand which records may be requested.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2026. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight eastern time at the end of that day.
You may submit comments on this proposed amendment, identified by Docket No. USCIS-2026-0331, through the federal eRulemaking Portal at
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot
Identity and Information Management Division, Immigration Records and Identity Services, USCIS, DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Genealogy Program was established in 2008 in a Final Rule (
Under the program, the public can request copies of “historical records” as defined in 8 CFR 103.39. These historical records include Naturalization Certificate Files (C-Files) from September 27, 1906 to April 1, 1956; Microfilmed Alien Registration Forms from August 1, 1940 to March 31, 1944; Visa Files from July 1, 1924 to March 31, 1944; Registry Files from March 2, 1929 to March 31, 1944, and records contained in Alien Files numbered below 8 million (A8000000) and documents therein dated prior to May 1, 1951.
Although the rule defined historical records (8 CFR 103.39) that may be produced under the program, it did not address the impact of general federal records management requirements (
NARA has determined that the USCIS records later defined by the regulation as “historical records” are permanent.
If this proposed rule is finalized, the public will be able to find which record sets have been transferred to NARA via the published records schedules addressing the disposition of historical records online at
DHS does not anticipate designating additional files as “historical records” under the regulation in the future. Therefore, over time, all USCIS designated historical records will be transferred to NARA in accordance with their records disposition schedule and requestors will no longer be able to access those records through the genealogy program. Instead, requestors may request access to those records directly from NARA. DHS welcomes public comment on all aspects of the proposed change to the definition of historical records, which records are produced by USCIS under the genealogy program, and the eventual discontinuation of the genealogy program process as USCIS transfers legal custody of historical records to NARA.
USCIS notes that for Alien Registration Forms (AR-2) requests, USCIS no longer processes these sets of records for requests received on or after May 17, 2024. In 2024, USCIS agreed to transfer AR-2s from August 1, 1940 to March 31, 1944 files to NARA. USCIS publicly announced that as of May 17, 2024, all AR-2s are available through NARA. USCIS notes that the impact of federal records requirements on the genealogy program is not necessarily clear to the public by reading DHS' existing genealogy regulations.
In an effort to revise USCIS' existing genealogy program regulations to clarify the impact of statutory and regulatory federal records requirements, DHS proposes changes to the genealogy program regulations to state that USCIS will produce historical records that have not been transferred to NARA pursuant to applicable published records schedules.
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in section (a)(17) of INA 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17) or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule as a “significant regulatory action under” section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this regulatory action.
As discussed in this preamble, the purpose of this notice for proposed rulemaking is to revise USCIS' existing genealogy program regulations to clarify
Most of the impacts of this rule are expected to be transfers in work and collection of fees for service from USCIS to NARA. The benefits of revising the regulations are related to aligning the genealogy search and records request process with federal records management requirements, reducing the burden and workload on USCIS associated with producing and storing records under the Genealogy Program that have been transferred to NARA, and transparency in how USCIS handles copies of records and uses its storage space. Table 1 provides a more detailed summary of the proposed rule provisions and their impacts.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Genealogy Program was established in 2008 in a Final Rule
This proposed rule would transfer work and associated fees for service related to genealogical index searches and records requests from USCIS to NARA in line with federal records management requirements. Form G-1041 is provided as a convenient means for persons to provide data necessary to perform a search of historical agency indices. Form G-1041A provides a convenient means for persons to identify a particular record desired under the Genealogy Program. Table 2 shows that based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual receipts from Form G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, (Paper Filing) to be 167, and Form G-1041 (Online Filing) to be 8,786. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the total annual receipts for G-1041 to be 8,953. Table 2 also shows that based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the annual receipts from Form G-1041A, Genealogy Records Requests (paper filing) to be 238, and for Form G-1041A (online filing) to be 5,552. Based on a 5-year annual average, DHS estimates the total annual receipts for G-1041A to be 5,790.
Currently, USCIS charges a fee of $80 for paper filing and $30 for online filing for each Form G-1041 and Form G-1041A submitted.
Requestors would eventually no longer come to USCIS for these historical genealogy requests. DHS does not have sufficient data from the genealogy forms to determine if entities or individuals submit these requests. The case management tracking system used by DHS for genealogy requests does not allow requestor data to be readily pulled. However, DHS previously determined that requests for historical records are usually made by individuals.
The benefits of revising the current regulations are that it would align the genealogy search and records request process with federal records management requirements, reduce the administrative burden and workload on USCIS associated with producing and storing records that have been transferred to NARA, and provide transparency in how USCIS would handle copies of historical records. Once historical records are sent to NARA, copies would be purged by USCIS when no longer needed for reference which would free up space in their facilities to be used to store other records.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, or governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Consequently, a rule's indirect impacts on a small entity not subject to the rule are not considered for RFA purposes. The RFA analysis for this proposed rule focuses on the population who file Genealogy Requests, Form G-1041 (Index Search Request) and Form G-1041A (Records Request). DHS currently does not have sufficient data on the requestors that file genealogy forms to determine whether such filings were made by entities or individuals and thus is unable to determine if this proposed clarification of the genealogy regulations would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DHS recognizes that some small entities may be impacted by this proposal but cannot determine how many or the exact impact. DHS is publishing this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to request public comments on the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
This proposed rule seeks to revise USCIS' existing genealogy program regulations to clarify the impact of statutory and regulatory federal records requirements.
DHS' objectives and legal authority for this proposed rule are discussed earlier in the preamble.
The population affected by this proposal includes individuals who use Form G-1041 to request a search of USCIS historical indices and individuals who use Form G-1041A to obtain copies of USCIS historical records. Based on the DHS records, Table 3 shows the estimated number of genealogy historical records requests and index search requests that were submitted to USCIS using Forms G-1041 and G-1041A for FY 2020 through FY 2024. DHS estimates that an annual average of 8,953 Form G-1041 index search requests and 5,790 Form G-1041A records requests were received during FY 2020 through FY 2024. For both forms, more than 95 percent of the requests were submitted electronically.
DHS previously determined that requests for historical records are usually made by individuals.
This proposed rule would not directly impose any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities.
DHS is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules, but invites any comment and information regarding any such rules.
DHS could produce records duplicative of those sent to NARA under the Genealogy Program, but it is redundant and expensive to do so.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate, because it would not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity. Amending genealogy regulations to clarify the impact of statutory and regulatory records requirements, and to better inform individuals who request immigration records through the agency's genealogy program which records may be requested through the program would not result in any expenditures by the State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector. The requirements of title II of UMRA; therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA.
This proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
DHS has reviewed this proposed rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.
DHS has no data that indicates that this proposed rule would have any impacts on family well-being. DHS has determined that the implementation of this proposal would not negatively affect family well-being and would not have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an institution and no further actions are required.
This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This proposed rule is limited to clarifying the effect of USCIS transferring legal custody of historical records to NARA, and to better inform individuals who request immigration records through the agency's genealogy program which agency to request these records from. This proposed rule is strictly administrative and procedural. DHS has reviewed this proposed rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this proposed rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that these proposed amendments to current regulations clearly fit within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, are not part of a larger Federal action, and do not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS must submit to Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule unless they are exempt. Please see the accompanying PRA documentation for the full analysis. The following information collections are part of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
DHS and USCIS invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the impact to the proposed collection of information. In accordance with the PRA, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0096 in the body of the letter and the agency name. Please refer to the
(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 the agency's 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, 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)
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Fees, Freedom of information, Immigration, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Secretary of Homeland Security proposes to amend chapter I of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1185 note, 1304, 1356, 1365b, 1372, 1801-1815; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1
(a)
(c)
Historical Records are files, forms, and documents in USCIS' legal custody, and are located within the following records series:
(a)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Request for comment.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public responses to this Request for Comment to better inform its understanding and oversight of derivatives markets in compute.
Comments must be received on or before October 20, 2026.
You may submit comments, specifically referencing “Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts” and RIN 3038-AF77, by any of the following methods:
•
1. Under Refine Documents Results—check the box to “Only show documents open for comment”;
2. Under Agency—select “See More” and check the box for “Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” then press the Apply button;
3. Identify this proposal in the list of CFTC documents open for comment, press the “Comment” button to open the submission form, and follow the instructions on the form.
Alternatively, if you are viewing this proposal on
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through
All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Do not include in your comment text or attachments any personal identifying information or business information that you do not want published online. Comments (regardless of submission method) will be published without review for, and without removal of, any personal identifying information or information your business may consider confidential.
If you wish to submit confidential information for the Commission's consideration, please contact the CFTC personnel listed in this Notice under
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, or redact all or any part of your comment submission. The CFTC also reserves the right, without further notification, to refuse to publish or to remove from public view all or any part of your submission to the extent it contains content inappropriate for publication in a comment file, such as—without limitation—obscene language, threats of violence, solicitations for commercial sales or illegal activity, or obvious spam. If a submission that is refused for or withdrawn from publication because of inappropriate content also contains comments on the merits of this proposal, such submission will be retained in the record for the matter and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.
Tyler S. Badgley, General Counsel,
The derivatives markets that the Commission oversees pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or the “Act”) are “affected with a national public interest” because they facilitate risk management and price discovery “through trading in liquid, fair and financially secure trading facilities.”
As discussed further below, this request for comment addresses an emerging class of derivatives contracts that reference the price of access to computing power (“compute”),
The Commission is seeking comment on the factors that a DCM should consider when addressing certain provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations thereunder that are relevant to the listing for trading of derivatives with compute as the underlier (“compute derivatives”).
DCMs are CFTC-regulated exchanges that provide participants in the derivatives markets with the ability to trade derivative contracts.
Section 3(b) of the CEA confers on the Commission the responsibility to ensure that each DCM appropriately prioritizes its self-regulatory obligations,
Each DCM also has a specific statutory obligation under DCM Core Principle 3 to only list for trading derivative contracts that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.
Core Principle 4 further requires that DCMs have the capacity and responsibility to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruptions of the delivery or cash settlement process, through market surveillance, compliance, and enforcement practices and procedures.
For a number of the DCM Core Principles, the Commission has adopted rules that establish the manner in which a DCM must comply with the relevant Core Principle.
Moreover, with respect to the DCM Core Principle 3 requirement that a DCM only list for trading derivatives contracts that are not readily susceptible to manipulation, the Commission has adopted guidance that is set forth in appendix C to part 38—Demonstration of Compliance That a Contract is Not Readily Susceptible to Manipulation.
Among other matters, the Appendix C Guidance outlines, for both physically-settled and cash-settled derivatives contracts, certain considerations in connection with the design of the contract's rules and terms and conditions.
The United States is in a race to achieve global dominance in AI. As the White House described in its July 2025 AI Action Plan (“AI Action Plan”), “whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits. . . . [I]t is imperative that the United States and its allies win this race.”
The price of compute is one of the most material costs of AI that affects the entire AI production stack.
However, there are potential challenges to the development of a mature compute derivatives market. The Commission preliminarily understands that compute markets are fragmented and price formation primarily occurs in opaque bilateral transactions, hindering the availability of current and historical price data, along with consensus still forming concerning the appropriate underlying “compute” commodity. Moreover, dominant market participants may wield significant pricing power that may lead to manipulability, preferential pricing arrangements, and, in turn, unfair market dynamics. Further, pricing can vary dramatically across providers, regions, and contract structures. In other words, the Commission preliminarily believes that compute may not yet exhibit certain of the characteristics of commodities that typically underlie a commodity derivatives market, including fungibility, standardization, and sufficient liquidity.
For example, with respect to fungibility and standardization, the Commission preliminarily understands that the commodity underlying a compute futures contract would typically be access to rented compute capacity from hardware the purchaser of such capacity does not own (
The Commission has a statutory obligation under the CEA to, among other matters, foster the national public
a. How does observed price behavior in compute markets compare to price behavior in cash markets underlying derivatives that the Commission has customarily regulated? In responding, please distinguish between on-demand, spot, reserved, committed purchase modes, and state for each the volume transacted, the number of distinct counterparties transacting, and whether any transaction price is published. Are there particular commodity markets that the Commission should consider as being especially relevant or similar to the compute cash market?
b. What data sources, analyses, calculations, variables, or other factors should be used to determine the market size, liquidity, transaction volume, types of participants, and supplier concentration of compute markets? Please distinguish between publicly available data sources and the data derived from non-public, bilateral agreements. How should the Commission consider the fact that, in the Commission's preliminary understanding, non-public, bilateral agreements carry the majority of economic value but tend to be undisclosed and negotiated privately?
c. What proportion of compute transactions occur at publicly disclosed prices, and what proportion does not? What data applicable to this question is available by voluntary disclosure, as opposed to obligations under statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligations? Would it be appropriate to permit trading in a derivative contract settling to a price computed from data that the Commission may not be able to observe, verify, or surveil, in whole or in part?
d. Have any audits, studies, or independent verifications of the transaction data referenced in question 1(c) above been conducted, and if so, what did they conclude?
e. How do the characteristics of the compute cash markets differ from those of the cash markets underlying derivatives customarily regulated by the Commission? Please address the following characteristics: (i) whether the underlying commodity is storable; (ii) whether a publicly observable transaction record exists, and what proportion of the total transaction volume it captures; (iii) the number of producers of the commodity and the share of commodity production attributable to the largest producers; (iv) the extent to which units of the commodity are fungible across producers without adjustment, and if not, what quality or grade adjustments are necessary to foster fungibility; and (v) whether any price reporting agency or enforced standardized methodology exists.
f. Please describe any potential effects on the cash market for compute that may arise in connection with the listing or trading of compute derivatives. In particular, would the existence of a listed futures contract settling to a published compute index change provider incentives with respect to the publication of posted rates, the pricing or structuring of bilateral reservations, the disclosure of utilization and committed capacity data, or the allocation of capacity amongst purchasers? How should the Commission consider whether the parties best positioned to influence the reference price are the same parties that supply capacity or contribute transactions or posted rates from which price is computed? Is this different from other derivative contracts and their commodity underliers?
g. Regarding DCM Core Principle 5, what would be an appropriate deliverable supply estimate methodology to evaluate the necessity and appropriateness of position limits or position accountability levels?
a. Core Principle 3 requires a DCM to list only contracts not readily susceptible to manipulation. What features would a compute derivatives contract that cash settles to an index calculated over predominantly bilateral and privately priced cash market transactions be required to demonstrate to satisfy that standard, consistent with the Appendix C Guidance?
b. Certain published compute price series are constructed in whole or in part from posted or listed rates that the compute capacity providers themselves administer, with the remainder of transactions executed on venues that a small number of participants operate or dominate. Are there protections or requirements that would prevent a compute capacity provider from manipulating a cash settlement index by adjusting a posted rate, directing capacity onto or away from a venue whose transactions the index calculation methodology treats as input data, or by executing or declining to execute transactions during the observation window? Please describe any such protections or requirements which the Commission should consider.
c. What volume, transaction-frequency, and contributor concentration data typically characterize the population from which a compute reference price may be calculated? What thresholds would be appropriate for a compute settlement reference price given the idiosyncrasies of the cash markets for compute?
d. Core Principle 4 requires a DCM to have the capacity and responsibility to prevent manipulation, price distortion, and disruption of the delivery or cash-settlement process. What surveillance capabilities would be necessary to satisfy Core Principle 4 for compute derivatives, and are those capabilities presently feasible from a technological, operational, and legal perspective? Should a DCM be expected or required to maintain an information-sharing arrangement with each compute venue and each compute capacity provider whose transactions or posted rates enter a settlement reference price against which a compute derivative settles on the DCM?
e. What, if any, recalibration of market safeguards, risk controls, and liquidity protections should a DCM implement for compute derivatives to ensure price formation remains representative of genuine supply and demand, and to prevent thin liquidity conditions from resulting in disproportionate or runaway price movements that could influence benchmark markets?
f. Are there any types or patterns of trader or intermediary conduct that has occurred in the compute cash markets that raise market risks or challenges and should be monitored closely by trading venues or regulators? How do these risks and challenges compare to cash markets underlying more mature futures products?
g. Appendix C to part 38 provides that a cash-settled derivative contract is readily susceptible to manipulation if the settlement price is not reliable, acceptable, publicly available, and timely, and is computed from a cash market that is sufficiently liquid and not itself readily susceptible to manipulation. Is there a cash price series for compute cash markets that could serve as a reference price that
h. The Appendix C Guidance addresses the adequacy of deliverable supply and susceptibility to squeezes and corners. What is the estimated deliverable supply for compute at the relevant pricing point or points and how are they measured? Please provide associated data.
i. Are there any other considerations the Commission should take into account with respect to evaluating a DCM's compliance with the Core Principles in connection with the listing and trading of compute derivatives?
a. What heightened anti-money laundering and know your customers concerns, if any, are present in the compute markets, as compared to more mature commodities markets? What challenges may introducing brokers, FCMs, and other intermediaries face in implementing a BSA/AML program for compute futures?
b. What customer-protection considerations, such as disclosure requirements arise from offering a compute derivatives contract settling against a geopolitically sensitive commodity, including to retail participants? How do these considerations differ, if at all, from derivatives that settle against other commodities, such as oil?
c. Should the terms and conditions of a compute futures contract be required to include any specific information related to idiosyncratic risks? If so, what are those idiosyncratic risks?
d. What, if any, unique protections and prophylactic measures are appropriate or necessary for the protection of retail users of compute derivatives and markets, including as compared to other derivatives markets?
e. Are there any types of trader or intermediary conduct that are particular to compute cash markets and contemplated compute derivative markets, including any such conduct that may require additional action by the Commission?
a. Would perpetual compute futures have advantages for market participants over “traditional” or “fixed date” futures contracts? Would perpetual compute derivatives provide commercial risk management features that cannot be met with existing products?
b. Would perpetual compute derivatives pose any unique risks for market participants or the broader markets? Are there additional protections or safeguards that the Commission or exchanges should adopt to mitigate risks associated with these products?
The Commission is requesting comment from the public on all aspects of these questions and encourages the public to provide any information that may provide value to the Commission as it considers compute derivatives markets. The Commission particularly encourages commenters to provide empirical and data-driven input.
This request for comment is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing several amendments to its registration requirements for certain commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”) to reduce duplicative and overlapping regulation and reflect inflation (“Proposal”). The Proposal would add an exemption from CPO registration for certain investment advisers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Registered Investment Advisers” or “RIAs”) in relation to commodity pools for which the participants are limited to certain sophisticated investors and which meet other conditions; add a related registration exemption for CTAs; and increase the total gross capital contributions threshold in the CPO registration exemption for small commodity pools (commonly referred to as the “Small Pool Exemption”) to account for inflation. The Commission preliminarily intends for the Proposal, if adopted, to supersede certain no-action positions issued by the Commission's Market Participants Division (“MPD”).
Comments must be in writing and received by October 5, 2026.
You may submit comments, specifically referencing “Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: Reduction of Duplicative Regulation Through Intermediary Registration Exemptions; Expansion of the Exemption for Small Commodity Pools” and RIN 3038-AF78, by any of the following methods:
•
1. Under Refine Documents Results—check the box to “Only show documents open for comment”;
2. Under Agency—select “See More” and check the box for “Commodity Futures Trading Commission,” then press the Apply button;
3. Identify this Proposal in the list of CFTC documents open for comment, press the “Comment” button to open the submission form, and follow the instructions on the form.
Alternatively, if you are viewing this Proposal on
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one of these methods. To avoid possible delays with mail or in-person deliveries, submissions through
All comments must be submitted in English or, if not, accompanied by an English translation. Do not include in your comment text or attachments any personal identifying information or business information that you do not want published online. Comments (regardless of submission method) will be published without review for, and without removal of, any personal identifying information or information your business may consider confidential.
If you wish to submit confidential information for the Commission's consideration, please contact the CFTC personnel listed in this Notice under
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, or redact all or any part of your comment submission. The CFTC also reserves the right, without further notification, to refuse to publish or to remove from public view all or any part of your submission to the extent it contains content inappropriate for publication in a comment file, such as—without limitation—obscene language, threats of violence, solicitations for commercial sales or illegal activity, or obvious spam. If a submission that is refused for or withdrawn from publication because of inappropriate content also contains comments on the merits of this Proposal, such submission will be retained in the record for the matter and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and other applicable laws and may be accessible under the FOIA.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language summary of the proposed rule is available at
DJ Hennes, Director,
The Commission is proposing to amend certain part 4 regulations,
In addition, the Commission is proposing an inflation-based adjustment for the Small Pool Exemption to continue its efforts at maintaining and modernizing long-standing regulations with financial thresholds, similar to recently adopted increases to certain financial thresholds of the “qualified eligible person” (“QEP”) definition found in 17 CFR 4.7.
Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA” or “Act”) defines the term “commodity pool operator” as any person engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise, and who, with respect to that commodity pool, solicits, accepts, or receives from others, funds, securities, or property, either directly or through capital contributions, the sale of stock or other forms of securities, or otherwise, for the purpose of trading in commodity interests.
With respect to both CPOs and CTAs, the CEA authorizes the Commission to include persons within, or exclude them from, those definitions, by rule, regulation, or order, if the Commission determines that such action will effectuate the purposes of the CEA.
17 CFR part 4 specifically governs the operations and activities of CPOs and CTAs. These regulations implement the statutory authority provided to the Commission by the CEA and also establish registration exemptions and definitional exclusions for CPOs and CTAs.
Several regulations in part 4 also reduce regulatory burdens and compliance obligations for certain persons engaged in CPO and CTA activities, where the Commission has determined as a matter of policy that it is appropriate and serves the interests of the public or the purposes of the CEA to do so.
While 17 CFR 4.7 does not provide exemptions from CPO registration and instead provides exemptions from certain part 4 compliance obligations of CPOs applicable to qualifying commodity pools, Regulation 4.13 provides exemptions from CPO registration and related registrant compliance obligations for each qualifying pool.
Former Regulation 4.13(a)(4) (the “Original QEP Exemption”),
The Original QEP Exemption had the following conditions with respect to the related commodity pool: (i) interests in the pool were exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”),
The Commission rescinded the Original QEP Exemption in 2012.
In 2025, the Trump Administration articulated an agenda that emphasizes removing unnecessary and duplicative regulations, streamlining oversight where other federal regulators already provide robust coverage, and enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of U.S. financial markets.
Consistent with the regulatory agenda articulated above, on December 19, 2025, MPD issued Letter 25-50, which responded to a request from the Managed Funds Association (“MFA”). MFA argued that providing a registration no-action position to an RIA that is required to be registered as a CPO with the Commission (“RIA-CPO”) “would mitigate the burdens of duplicative, overlapping regulation and is wholly aligned with the Trump Administration's efforts to identify regulations that eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; or implement more stringent standards than required by law” and would further “policy goals [of the CFTC that] . . . recognize the sophistication of QEP investors and better harmonize CFTC regulation with the SEC, thereby reducing unnecessary expenses and burdens.”
Letter 25-50 provides no-action positions on CPO and CTA registration similar to the Original QEP Exemption in former Regulations 4.13(a)(4) and 4.14(a)(8), conditioned, among other things, on: (1) the CPO being an RIA regulated by the SEC; (2) the relevant
On February 26, 2026, MPD issued CFTC Staff Letter 26-06 (“Letter 26-06”), which provided an additional no-action position with respect to certain delegation arrangements between CPOs entered into in reliance on the no-action position established by CFTC Staff Letter 14-126 (“Letter 14-126”), issued by MPD's predecessor, the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight.
The Commission believes that formal rulemaking in this context of CPO exemptions is necessary to provide durable, transparent, and uniformly applicable regulatory standards, while reducing the duplicative regulation of RIA-CPOs and the commodity pools they operate, and to provide consistency with past efforts to codify in its regulations staff letters that become routinely or widely utilized by market participants. The Commission believes it serves the public interest, and particularly the interests of market participants, to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking and to seek and consider the public's views in amending its regulations, consistent with the requirements of the APA. Moreover, the Commission believes that long-term reliance on no-action positions, like those in Letter 25-50, which do not represent the views of the Commission itself, and which could easily be withdrawn or modified by MPD, provides less long-term certainty for market participants and limits the opportunity for public input on Commission policy-making decisions.
The Commission further believes it is appropriate to undertake this rulemaking effort because it is consistent with the Commission's current regulatory approach of harmonizing CFTC and SEC regulatory regimes by reducing overlapping registration and compliance requirements, and because the Commission wishes to provide clarity in the context of CPO exemptions, while ensuring the statutory mandates and oversight goals contemplated by the CEA and the Commission's part 4 regulations are met. The Commission's experience administering Regulation 4.13 supports the premise that registration exemptions play a critical role in tailoring regulatory obligations to the nature of pools and their participants. Further, through this rulemaking process, the Commission intends to address many of the practical complexities of complying with the no-action positions in Letter 25-50.
Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would provide an exemption from CPO registration for RIAs in relation to commodity pools that meet certain proposed conditions discussed in more detail below (each commodity pool satisfying all of the conditions in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), an “Eligible Pool”).
As discussed above, the Commission has previously determined that providing an exemption from CPO registration is appropriate, where appropriately calibrated, when CPO registration with the Commission and
The Commission is proposing to limit the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) to RIAs. Doing so is consistent with the conditions of Letter 25-50 and ensures that CPOs relying on the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption are subject to a robust federal regulatory regime. RIAs are already subject to oversight and regulation under the Advisers Act and the SEC's regulations issued thereunder, including conduct standards, examinations under the federal securities laws, disclosure to RIA clients and reporting to the SEC, and for certain RIAs, reporting on Form PF.
This condition of the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption is also consistent with the Commission's approach of ensuring that the “minimum effective dose” of regulation is applied to Commission registrants and entities participating in markets subject to Commission jurisdiction. Moreover, exempting RIAs from CPO registration would effectively and significantly reduce duplicative regulatory burdens, as requested by industry groups like MFA, and encouraged by the Trump Administration's executive orders, without undermining the purposes and goals of the Commission's mandates established by the CEA. Under these circumstances, the Commission preliminarily believes that it is appropriate to rely upon the existing SEC regulatory system applied to RIAs, and that the CFTC can safely reduce duplicative federal regulation of RIAs whose conduct also meets the CPO definition through the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption, rather than requiring compliance with its part 4 regulatory regime applicable to CFTC-registered CPOs.
The Commission is proposing to require that interests in Eligible Pools be exempt from registration under the Securities Act and only marketed to the public in the U.S. under certain limited circumstances. Pursuant to the Original QEP Exemption, and consistent with Letter 25-50, interests in a pool exempt thereunder were required to be exempt from registration under the Securities Act,
The Commission proposes to require in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) that pool participants be limited in the same manner as in the Original QEP Exemption, with different requirements for non-natural and natural person participants. Accordingly, participants would be limited to Eligible Participants, as defined above,
The Commission recognizes that this is a recalibration of the participant condition MPD included in Letter 25-50, which did not differentiate between natural and non-natural persons; however, given its experience in administering the Original QEP Exemption from its 2003 adoption to its 2012 rescission, the Commission preliminarily believes that it is appropriate to include the participation limitations from the Original QEP Exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4). As the Commission has previously recognized, the QEP definition “encompasses a broad spectrum of market participants from large fund complexes and other institutional investors with significant assets under management to individuals
The Commission is proposing that for an RIA-CPO to be eligible for the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) with respect to an Eligible Pool, it must file Form PF for that pool, if required to do so.
Finally, as discussed in further detail below, the Proposal reinstates prior references to paragraph (a)(4) throughout Regulation 4.13, which would, in effect, require compliance with the existing provisions of 17 CFR 4.13(b), (c), (d), and (e). The Commission preliminarily believes that these requirements are an important part of the “minimum effective dose” of regulation for all exempt CPOs and pools, ensuring basic transparency to participants and the Commission, and that the conforming amendments outlined below effectively integrate Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) into the existing framework of Regulation 4.13.
Under Regulation 4.13(b)(1), persons claiming an exemption from CPO registration must file a notice of exemption with the NFA, typically through NFA's “electronic exemption filing system,” today known as NFA's Online Registration System.
Regulation 4.13(e)(2) currently provides that a person, who operates one or more exempt pools described in paragraph (a)(3), and one or more pools for which it must be, and is, registered as a CPO, is exempt from requirements applicable to registered CPOs with respect to its exempt pools, provided that specified disclosures and rights are afforded to participants.
The Commission additionally wishes to provide clarity with respect to the impact of the Proposal and its potential codification of the no-action positions provided by Letter 25-50. The Commission preliminarily intends the proposed amendments herein to ultimately supersede the no-action positions provided currently by Letter 25-50, if they are finalized by the
Nonetheless, the Commission acknowledges that Letter 25-50 provides a no-action position regarding the requirements of Regulation 4.13(e)(2). In particular, a no-action position on the requirement that a CPO offer a right of redemption to all pool participants prior to claiming and relying upon the CPO registration no-action position in Letter 25-50, potentially conflicts with the proposed conforming amendments to Regulation 4.13 reinstating cross-references to paragraph (a)(4) that would require, among other things listed in 17 CFR 4.13(e)(2), that a CPO transitioning a pool operated by a registered CPO to an exempt status offer such a redemption right as a condition of claiming the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4). The Commission believes it is important to reincorporate references to proposed paragraph (a)(4) within Regulation 4.13 to restore the original coordination and efficacy of Regulation 4.13 prior to the 2012 rescission of the Original QEP Exemption. However, the Commission does not intend to place additional, conflicting requirements upon RIA-CPOs that are currently relying on Letter 25-50 for qualifying pools, many of whom may have consequently deregistered as CPOs.
With respect to the no-action position in Letter 26-06 preserving the no-action position for Delegating CPOs in Letter 14-126, the Commission preliminarily believes the proposed amendments to Regulation 4.13 do not create concerns for Delegating and Designated CPOs engaged in delegation arrangements with respect to Eligible Pools. The Commission notes that the Proposed QEP Exemption would be broadly available to both Delegating and Designated CPOs with respect to an Eligible Pool, and more broadly, that a no-action position on CPO delegation, like that in Letter 14-126, is not necessary where the pool for which responsibility is being delegated is an exempt pool, including an Eligible Pool under the Proposed QEP Exemption, rather than one requiring CPO registration.
Regulation 4.14(a) provides various exemptions from registration as a CTA.
The Commission is proposing to amend 17 CFR 4.14(a)(8)(i)(D) to restore the cross-reference to Regulation 4.13(a)(4), such that the CTA exemption would also be available to investment advisers, including RIAs, whose commodity interest trading advice is directed, among others, solely to a CPO that has claimed an exemption under Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) with respect to Eligible Pools. The Commission preliminary believes that this proposed amendment is necessary to restore the integrated functioning of Regulations 4.13 and 4.14 as they operated prior to the 2012 rescission of the Original QEP Exemption and to avoid requiring separate CTA registration for advisory activities related solely to CPOs and pools that qualify for the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4). This approach is consistent with past Commission approaches regarding intermediary exemptions, namely that exempt CPOs should, generally speaking, also be exempt from CTA registration with respect to qualifying exempt pools,
Chairman Selig has publicly noted that current regulatory costs can be disproportionately burdensome for small- and medium-sized businesses accessing the commodity interest markets, and thus, has advocated for a “minimum effective dose” of regulation.
Under the Small Pool Exemption, 17 CFR 4.13(a)(2) currently provides an exemption from CPO registration for operators of “small pools,” defined as pools with no more than 15 participants and total gross capital contributions across all pools the person operates or intends to operate not exceeding $400,000, subject to certain exclusions for those contributions.
Given that more than two decades have passed since its last adjustment, and to again account for the effects of inflation and maintain the original scope and purpose of the Small Pool Exemption, the Commission is proposing to amend the threshold in Regulation 4.13(a)(2)(ii) by increasing the total gross capital contributions threshold from $400,000 to $800,000. This doubling of the threshold reflects the approximate cumulative inflationary impact since 2003, consistent with the Commission's methodology in adjusting this threshold in 2003 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) and its recent adjustments to QEP Portfolio Requirement thresholds under Regulation 4.7.
The proposed amendment would not alter the 15-participant per pool limit or the exclusion of certain contributions from the calculation of gross capital contributions. By updating only the monetary threshold, the Commission seeks to maintain the exemption's focus on small pools, while recognizing that the real value of the 2003 threshold has eroded over time. Utilizing the CPI Inflation Calculator, which uses data from the CPI-U to determine the current value of financial amounts, the Commission has determined that $400,000 in January 2003 has the same buying power as $735,097 as of July 2026.
Like its 2024 amendments to the Portfolio Requirement in Regulation 4.7,
The Commission is requesting comment on all aspects of the Proposal. In responding to each of the following questions, please provide a detailed response, including the rationale for such response, cost and benefit considerations, and relevant supporting information, such as data or studies available. The Commission specifically requests comment on the following:
1. Is it appropriate for the Commission to endeavor to provide a CPO registration exemption for RIAs operating and advising commodity pools that participate in the commodity interest markets on behalf of sophisticated investors? Why or why not?
2. Are the conditions of Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4)—SEC registration, exempted offering of pool interests, marketing limitations, participant limits based upon the Original QEP Exemption, and, where applicable, Form PF reporting—appropriate? Why or why not? For instance, please consider the following specific issues:
i. Does the exception of Rule 506(c) offerings from the marketing prohibition in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4)(i) effectively incorporate developments in securities law and private funds practice since the JOBS Act was passed and the SEC adopted related regulatory amendments?
ii. Is the proposed Form PF reporting condition sufficient to provide the Commission and FSOC with the information needed to monitor Eligible Pools for market and systemic risk? Given the proposed increases in Form PF filing thresholds discussed above,
iii. Are there other categories of “accredited investor” that the Commission should consider adding to the list of Eligible Participants in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4)?
iv. Please describe in detail any suggested adjustments to the conditions of the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption, or any different or additional conditions the Commission should consider, as well as the specific rationale justifying such adjustments or conditions.
3. By its terms, Letter 25-50 is intended to remain in effect until the Commission completes a rulemaking addressing the reinstatement of the Original QEP Exemption (or determines not to complete such a rulemaking). The Commission requests comment on whether the Proposal, if adopted as a final rule, should supersede Letter 25-50 in its entirety or only in part. Why or why not? In addition, the Commission requests comment on whether it should take any action similar to that in Letter 26-06 with respect to the treatment of CPO delegation arrangements under Letter
Is the proposed increase of the gross capital contributions threshold in 17 CFR 4.13(a)(2)(ii) from $400,000 to $800,000 an appropriate adjustment that effectively considers inflation since its last adjustment in 2003? Should the Commission consider a different amount? Why or why not? Please provide appropriate or relevant data on commodity pool size justifying alternative thresholds, whether higher or lower than that currently proposed.
1. Are the proposed conforming amendments to 17 CFR 4.13(b)(1)(ii), 4.13(e)(2), and 4.14(a)(8)(i)(D) clear and sufficient to reinstate the full functionality and coordination of the CPO and CTA exemption framework as it existed prior to the 2012 rescission of the Original QEP Exemption? Why or why not?
2. Should the Commission not make any particular proposed conforming amendment? Please identify the particular proposed amendment and provide a detailed explanation as to why it should or should not be included in amendments adopting a finalized RIA-QEP Exemption.
3. If the Proposal is ultimately finalized by the Commission through the publication of a related final rule, the amendments would generally become effective on the date that such a final rule is published. Should the Commission consider utilizing a later effective date solely with respect to the conforming amendment to 17 CFR 4.13(e)(2), especially with respect to qualifying pools and QEP No-Action CPOs that claimed Letter 25-50? Why or why not?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires Federal agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis reflecting the impact.
The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its regulations on small entities in accordance with the RFA.
With respect to CPOs, the Commission has previously determined that a CPO is a small entity for purposes of the RFA, only if it meets the criteria for the Small Pool Exemption.
Regarding CTAs, the Commission has previously considered whether such registrants would be deemed small entities for purposes of the RFA on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the particular Commission regulation at issue.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the Proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, with respect to CTAs.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
This proposed rulemaking would affect regulations that contain collections of information within the meaning of the PRA.
If the Proposal is adopted, responses to the collections of information referenced below related to the Proposal would be optional for those wishing to claim the exemptions. The Commission will protect proprietary information it may receive according to FOIA and 17 CFR part 145, “Commission Records and Information.” In addition, section 8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the Commission, unless specifically authorized by the CEA, from making public “data and information that would separately disclose the business transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customers.”
The Commission invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the proposed information collection requirements discussed above. The Commission will consider public comments on the proposed collections of information in: (1) evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use; (2) evaluating the accuracy of the estimated burdens of the proposed collections of information, including the degree to which the methodology and the assumptions that the Commission employed were valid; (3) enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be collected; and (4) minimizing the burden of the proposed information collection requirements on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological information collection techniques,
Copies of the submission from the Commission to OMB are available from the CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581, 202-418-5714 or from
• The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Submit comments electronically via
As discussed above, CEA sections 4m and 4n generally require the registration of persons acting as CPOs and CTAs, as well as compliance with a variety of substantive requirements explained in further detail in part 4 of the Commission's regulations. The Commission has further utilized this statutory authority to establish exemptions for persons from CPO and CTA registration under certain circumstances, when the purposes of the CEA and the public interest are not negatively affected.
Section 15(a)
The baseline for the Commission's consideration of the costs and benefits of the Proposal is the regulatory status quo, as determined by the CEA and the Commission's existing regulations in 17 CFR part 4, including specifically: (1) the existing CPO registration and compliance framework under the part 4 regulations; and (2) the existing and currently available exemptions under Regulations 4.13 and 4.14, with existing qualifications and financial thresholds (
Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would significantly reduce duplicative, overlapping registration and compliance obligations for qualifying RIA-CPOs and Eligible Pools, which are supervised by the SEC and subject to that agency's investment adviser regulatory regime. For these market participants, the Commission preliminarily believes that separate, additional CPO registration and related compliance requirements in 17 CFR part 4 may provide only a limited incremental benefit to participants, given the pre-existing application of SEC regulations to their advisory and fund activities, as well as the sophistication of participants required to qualify for the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4). Reducing duplicative regulations applicable to RIAs also engaged in CPO activities by providing this proposed registration exemption would substantially reduce such RIA-CPOs' legal, operational, and administrative costs, while maintaining the core regulatory protections provided by the CEA and Commission regulations for investors most in need of them. In particular, the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would eliminate the need for qualifying RIAs to incur costs associated with applying for and obtaining CPO registration, complying with applicable CFTC reporting requirements, and arising from other related compliance requirements typically applicable to commodity pools.
Moreover, the Commission generally endeavors, wherever possible and when prudent to do so, to codify in its regulations widely relied upon no-action positions created by its operating divisions.
The Commission further preliminarily believes that, in addition to adding Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), market participants will benefit from the restoration of appropriate cross-references in Regulations 4.13 and 4.14. These proposed amendments are intended to recreate the integrated functionality of the CPO and CTA exemption framework, as it existed prior to the 2012 rescission of the Original QEP Exemption. Specifically, these proposed amendments would incorporate Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) into the existing exemption claim and annual notice system, administered by NFA; clarify the limited compliance obligations applicable to exempt CPOs and their pools once the proposed amendments are adopted and effective; and ensure that RIAs operating Eligible Pools exempt under Proposed Regulation
With respect to the Small Pool Exemption, the Commission preliminarily believes that the commodity interest markets and market participants will benefit from the increased gross capital contributions threshold in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(2). As discussed in more detail above, the Commission has historically endeavored to ensure that financial thresholds in its regulations maintain their relevancy and intended scope by periodically adjusting them to account for time and economic factors like inflation. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily believes that increasing the gross capital contributions threshold in Regulation 4.13(a)(2) from $400,000 to $800,000 would account for inflation occurring since 2003, effectively aligning the exemption with current economic conditions. By modernizing this threshold in one of the CPO exemptions originally adopted in 1979, the Commission also preliminarily believes that the proposed increase preserves the original purpose and scope of the Small Pool Exemption: to avoid disproportionate regulatory burdens for operators of small pools with a limited financial footprint, which do not substantially benefit the public interest. Persons qualifying for the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(2) would be able to offer commodity pool investment opportunities and experience a lower bar to entry in the commodity interest markets, with little customer protection or regulatory risk, due to other aspects of the Small Pool Exemption remaining unchanged. As with CPOs qualifying for Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), the Commission preliminarily believes that registered CPOs who may instead qualify for and claim the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(2) would benefit from a significant reduction in legal, operational, and administrative costs, by virtue of their being able to deregister with the Commission as CPOs.
Notwithstanding the expected benefits of being able to deregister as CPOs and CTAs, the Commission recognizes that some costs will arise specifically from the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption. For instance, the Commission expects that RIAs seeking to claim Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) with respect to Eligible Pools would incur costs associated with: (1) verifying pool participants' sophistication; (2) filing the initial claim of exemption and annually renewing it for each pool and RIA-CPO; and (3) meeting the other requirements in Regulation 4.13, including providing required disclosures and maintaining books and records of the exempt RIA-CPO and exempt pool activities.
The Commission preliminarily expects that RIA-CPOs may experience costs in their efforts to ensure that their pool participants meet the proposed eligibility criteria in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4)(iii). However, it is the Commission's understanding that many RIA-CPOs wishing to claim the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) may likely be transitioning from other regulatory statuses that currently already involve some degree of eligibility assessment for their pool participants. For example, RIA-CPOs currently exempt under Regulation 4.13(a)(3) are already experienced in evaluating and limiting their pool participants to qualify for that exemption, and RIA-CPOs who are registered, but offer pools pursuant to Regulation 4.7, also routinely evaluate their participants to determine their status as QEPs. The Commission notes further that the proposed participant eligibility criteria are derived from the Original QEP Exemption, with which many RIA-CPOs have had prior experience and familiarity, until its rescission in 2012. Therefore, with the exception of newly formed RIA-CPOs who have not previously operated commodity pools subject to CFTC jurisdiction, the Commission preliminarily expects that the costs of the proposed participant eligibility requirements in the RIA-QEP Exemption would be mitigated by the substantial likelihood that potential claimants already have experience and existing processes in place to meet that qualification of the proposed exemption. Moreover, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed participant requirements in the RIA-QEP Exemption are necessary to ensure the proposed exemption is appropriately tailored and narrowed in scope to financially sophisticated and experienced investors who would receive far fewer benefits from the complete application of the CPO registration and compliance regulations, than other investors more in need of those protections,
The Commission further recognizes that RIA-CPOs would incur costs from complying with the requirement to electronically file a claim for Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), and further, to annually verify that the RIA-CPO and Eligible Pool continue to qualify for the RIA-QEP Exemption. Again, however, given that RIA-CPOs seeking to rely upon Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) may be transitioning from another exemption provided by Regulation 4.13(a)(3), or from registered CPO status operating a Regulation 4.7 pool, the Commission preliminarily expects that such entities would already be experienced and familiar with the online system administered by NFA on the Commission's behalf to receive and maintain exemption claims under Regulation 4.13 and other part 4 regulations, and familiar with what such notices must contain to be effective. Consequently, the Commission preliminarily believes that any costs incurred from the initial and annual notice filings experienced by persons claiming Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would likely be lessened because of that experience and any existing processes and procedures they may already have in place, and ultimately, would be small. Furthermore, the Commission preliminarily finds that such costs are necessary to integrate Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) into its existing CPO exemption framework and to facilitate the Commission's monitoring of how frequently and by whom the RIA-QEP Exemption is used.
The Proposal would also result in some compliance costs arising from other provisions of Regulation 4.13, including,
The Commission preliminarily expects that, as a result of the requirements outlined above, RIA-CPOs claiming Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would experience some operational and administrative costs. The Commission preliminarily believes, however, that such costs are necessary to ensure that pools exempt under Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) are treated and overseen in a manner equal to other pools operating pursuant to exemptions in Regulation 4.13. Moreover, such costs would likely be mitigated by potential claimants' experience and familiarity in complying with existing, similar requirements applicable to exempt and registered CPOs.
Additionally, with respect to CPOs relying on Letter 25-50 for certain pools, the Commission preliminarily believes that the requirements of Regulation 4.13(e)(2) should not apply when such pools transition to instead claiming the exemption in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4). The Commission preliminarily believes that this approach would ease this transition to formally exempt status for such RIA-CPOs and their pools, limiting disruption in their on-going operations, and would lessen the costs they experience arising from the generally applicable compliance requirements in Regulation 4.13. Moreover, because these requirements mirror many conditions already present in Letter 25-50, the Commission preliminarily expects these costs of compliance and transition to a Regulation 4.13 exemption to be modest; the Commission recognizes, however, that some additional costs may be incurred as a result of minor variations between Letter 25-50 and the Proposal. With respect to registered CPOs claiming Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) for pools without prior reliance on Letter 25-50, the Commission believes it appropriate for such CPOs and pools to fully comply with the other requirements of 17 CFR 4.13, including 17 CFR 4.13(e)(2). Ultimately, the Commission preliminarily concludes that costs incurred by persons claiming Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) arising from Regulation 4.13's broader compliance requirements are necessary to establish consistent, minimal oversight of all exempt pools and to provide transparency and similar levels of protection to existing pool participants when a pool transitions from regulated to an exempt status.
With respect to another conforming amendment, the proposed amendment to Regulation 4.14(a)(8), the baseline is the existing exemption for investment advisers that currently does not recognize the CPOs of pools exempt under Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) as permitted advisory clients. If the proposed amendment is finalized, investment advisers who qualify and advise, among other clients listed therein, CPOs of pools that would be exempt under Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would incur costs associated with the notice filing required by this CTA exemption. These investment advisers may already be claiming the CTA exemption in Regulation 4.14(a)(8) with respect to advisory clients currently permitted thereunder, in which case any filing costs arising directly from this Proposal would be further minimized.
Finally, the Commission recognizes that persons seeking to claim Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would incur legal, operational, and administrative costs arising from the proposed requirement that a person file Form PF with the SEC, to the extent SEC regulations require such a filing with respect to the Eligible Pool. Additionally, in forming a pool qualifying for Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), there may be costs arising from establishing a securities offering exempt under the Securities Act and subject to the proposed marketing limitations. However, because these costs associated with formation and Form PF reporting, as required, arise from existing SEC regulations, the Commission preliminarily believes that these aspects of Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would not create any additional costs than those that would already be experienced by such persons in forming and operating their private funds.
With respect to the Small Pool Exemption, the baseline is the exemption found at Regulation 4.13(a)(2) with the existing requirements, including the gross capital contributions limitation of $400,000. The Commission expects that CPOs who qualify for the Small Pool Exemption as a result of the proposed increase of that threshold to $800,000 would experience costs arising from the initial and annual notice filings and general compliance requirements found in Regulation 4.13. Given that such CPOs able to qualify for the expanded Small Pool Exemption would be permitted to deregister and become exempt from CPO registration, the Commission expects the costs associated with Regulation 4.13 notices and compliance to be modest in comparison to the costs of full registration and compliance with all CPO regulations in 17 CFR part 4.
Further, because this Proposal will solely provide optional alternatives to registration with the Commission as a CPO or CTA, which alternative no CPO or CTA is required to elect, the Commission believes that this Proposal will not impose any additional costs on such persons. In fact, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to expect that those CPOs and CTAs that elect to rely on the proposed exemptions from registration would generally only do so to the extent that they believe they will save costs in the aggregate by virtue of such reliance.
The Commission considered several alternatives to the Proposal. First, for analytical completeness, the Commission considered retaining the regulatory status quo and determining not to promulgate regulations establishing a CPO exemption available to RIAs operating pools limited to sophisticated investors, which would have caused Letter 25-50 to expire. However, the Commission preliminarily believes that, when compared to the Proposal, this approach would lead to significant costs to market participants, who would be required to comply with two separate, but simultaneously applicable, regulatory regimes administered by the SEC and the Commission with limited regulatory or public interest benefit. This would result in substantial costs to RIA-CPOs, especially to those who have already filed a claim pursuant to Letter 25-50 and withdrawn from CPO registration in reliance thereon. Additionally, these entities would be precluded from achieving or maintaining significant benefits discussed above arising from
Second, the Commission considered proposing a new exemption based upon substantially different eligibility criteria than the conditions contained in Letter 25-50 by including additional reporting or operational conditions. As compared to the Proposal, establishing different eligibility criteria for this CPO exemption would result in some costs, especially to those market participants who qualify for the no-action positions in Letter 25-50, but would not qualify under a CPO exemption with more or different requirements. Such entities, many of whom have already begun the process of withdrawing from CPO registration after claiming Letter 25-50, may incur significant costs as a result of reapplying for CPO registration and resuming part 4 compliance. The Commission has preliminarily determined that additional restrictions beyond minor adjustments to the conditions of Letter 25-50 would not provide material regulatory or customer protection benefits and would likely significantly limit the utility of the exemption.
With respect to the Small Pool Exemption, the Commission considered leaving the original gross capital contributions threshold in place. As compared to the Proposal, CPOs who would qualify for the increased threshold in Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(2) would continue to incur costs associated with CPO registration and compliance for their small pools, with limited regulatory benefit to participants, and be prohibited from benefiting from the expanded availability of the Small Pool Exemption. This approach would also limit the overall benefit from the Proposal of modernizing long-standing financial thresholds and maintaining the appropriate scope of the original Small Pool Exemption, in light of changing economic conditions.
Because the Proposal strikes an appropriate balance between substantially reducing costs to market participants through eliminating duplicative and overlapping regulations, and maintaining sufficient oversight and customer protection in the commodity interest markets, while also integrating and updating the CPO exemption regime in Regulation 4.13, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments would be the most appropriate approach for market participants and participants in their offered pools.
Section 15(a) of the CEA
Section 15(a)(2)(A) of the CEA
Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would provide an exemption to CPOs that are RIAs and who offer pools solely to Eligible Participants,
The Proposal would also expand the availability of the Small Pool Exemption by increasing its gross capital contributions threshold to account for inflation and current economic conditions. The Commission preliminarily believes it is prudent and appropriate to periodically review its regulations and update them as necessary to ensure that policies like registration exemptions remain fit to their original purpose and scope and continue to function as intended in the commodity interest markets. Overall, the Proposal if adopted, would allow market participants to experience better targeted, more efficient application of CFTC regulations and requirements to registered intermediaries, by reducing duplicative regulatory regimes and focusing CFTC resources on customer protection and compliance to members of the investing public with fewer resources and less experience, who may be more vulnerable and benefit the most from that protection.
Section 15(a)(2)(B) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of “efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets.”
Section 15(a)(2)(C) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of price discovery considerations.
Section 15(a)(2)(D) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of sound risk management practices.
Section 15(a)(2)(E) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of other public interest considerations.
Additionally, the Commission preliminarily believes that, by leveraging the existing SEC oversight of RIAs and private fund-commodity pools eligible for the Proposed RIA-QEP Exemption, the Commission would be better able to direct its limited resources to registered intermediaries, commodity pools, pool participants, and advisory clients in an effective and targeted manner. Specifically, the Commission intends to focus its intermediary regulations on CPOs and CTAs engaging with pool participants and advisory clients more in need of direct intervention and protection, including those persons who are new investors in the commodity interest markets, or who possess fewer resources to assess the risks of an investment opportunity. Further, the Commission preliminarily believes that, by virtue of claiming Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), eligible RIA-CPOs may also be able to reallocate their internal compliance resources currently devoted to CFTC obligations toward other aspects of their operations, like risk management functions and investor-facing activities. With respect to the Small Pool Exemption, the Commission preliminarily believes the public interest is served when it regularly evaluates and updates financial thresholds in its regulations to ensure such thresholds maintain their original intended scope and relevance in the context of current economic conditions.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of its consideration of the costs and benefits of the Proposal, including any available quantifiable data and analysis.
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation.
The Commission has considered the proposed amendments in this Proposal to determine whether they are anticompetitive and has preliminarily identified no anticompetitive effects. The Commission requests comment on whether the Proposal is anticompetitive and, if it is, what the anticompetitive effects are.
Because the Commission has preliminarily determined that the Proposal is not anticompetitive and has no anticompetitive effects, the Commission has not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the purposes of the CEA. The Commission requests comment on whether there are less anticompetitive means of achieving the relevant purposes of the CEA that would otherwise be served by adopting the amendments proposed in this Proposal.
Executive Orders 12866 (“E.O. 12866”)
OMB has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in E.O. 12866, as amended, and
This Proposal, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192.
Commodity pool operators, Commodity trading advisors, Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Swaps.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposes to amend 17 CFR part 4, as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The total gross capital contributions it receives for units of participation in all of the pools it operates or that it intends to operate do not in the aggregate exceed $800,000.
(4) With respect to each pool for which the person claims exemption under this paragraph (a)(4):
(i) Interests in the pool are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are offered and sold without marketing to the public in the United States, provided that this prohibition on marketing shall not apply to a pool that is also offered pursuant to § 230.506(c) of this title;
(ii) The person is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;
(iii) The person reasonably believes, at the time of investment (or, in the case of an existing pool, at the time of conversion to a pool meeting the criteria of paragraph (a)(4) of this section), that:
(A) Each natural person participant (including such person's self-directed employee benefit plan, if any) is a natural person listed in paragraph (i) of the definition of “qualified eligible person” in § 4.7(a)(6) of this part; and
(B) Each non-natural person participant is a “qualified eligible person,” as that term is defined in § 4.7(a)(6) of this part, or an “accredited investor,” as that term is defined in §§ 230.501(a)(1)-(3), (a)(7), or (a)(8), of this title;
(iv) The person files Form PF, if it is required to do so by Form PF and/or related securities regulations;
(v) Nothing in paragraph (a)(4) of this section will prohibit the person from claiming an exemption under this section, if it additionally operates one or more pools that meet the criteria of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Specify the paragraph number pursuant to which the person is filing the notice (
(e) * * *
(2) If a person operates one or more commodity pools described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section, and one or more pools for which it must be, and is, registered as a commodity pool operator, the person is exempt from the requirements applicable to a registered commodity pool operator with respect to the pool or pools described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section;
(i) Furnishes in written communication physically delivered or delivered through electronic transmission to each prospective participant in a pool described in paragraph (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section that it operates:
(A) A statement that it will operate the pool as if the person was exempt from registration as a commodity pool operator;
(B) A description of the criteria pursuant to which it will so operate the pool;
(ii) Complies with paragraph (c) of this section; and
(iii) Provides each existing participant in a pool that the person elects to operate as described in paragraphs (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section a right to redeem the participant's interest in the pool, and informs each such participant of that right no later than the time the person commences to operate the pool as described in paragraphs (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this section.
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) A commodity pool operator who has claimed an exemption from registration under § 4.13(a)(3) or 4.13(a)(4), or, if registered as a commodity pool operator, who may treat each pool it operates that meets the criteria of § 4.13(a)(3) or 4.13(a)(4) as if it were not so registered; and
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations relating to Trump accounts. The proposed regulations would provide guidance regarding eligible investments, which are the only assets in which Trump account funds may be invested before the first day of the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18. The proposed regulations would affect account beneficiaries and trustees of Trump accounts.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 20, 2026.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit public comments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Justin R. Karlin at (202) 317-6842; concerning submissions of comments or a public hearing, the Publications and Regulations Section at (202) 317-6091 (not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This document contains proposed regulations under section 530A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that would amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1). The proposed regulations are issued under the express delegation of authority provided in section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iv), which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate (Secretary) to specify criteria (in addition to those listed in section 530A(b)(3)(A)) that a mutual fund or exchange traded fund must meet to be an eligible investment. The proposed regulations are also issued under the express delegation of authority under section 530A(g)(3), which provides that in selecting the trustee of a Trump account created or organized by the Secretary, the Secretary shall take into account the costs imposed by the trustee on the account or the account beneficiary. Finally, the proposed regulations are issued under the express delegation of authority under section 7805(a) of the Code, which authorizes the Secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Code], including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.”
Section 70204 of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025), commonly referred to as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, added new sections 530A, 128, and 6434 to the Code. Section 530A provides for the establishment of a Trump account for an eligible individual. Section 128 provides rules for employer contributions to a Trump account. Section 6434 provides rules for a one-time $1,000 pilot program contribution by the Secretary to the Trump account of an eligible child with respect to whom an election is made under section 6434.
A Trump account is an individual retirement account (as defined in section 408(a)) (IRA) not designated as a Roth IRA that is established for the exclusive benefit of an eligible individual (as defined in section 530A(b)(2)) or such eligible individual's beneficiaries under section 530A. Special rules apply to the Trump account during the period that begins when an initial Trump account is first established for an account beneficiary (as defined in section 530A(b)(4)) and ends on December 31 of the calendar year in which the account beneficiary reaches the age of 17 (the growth period). The special rules concern contributions, investments, distributions, and reporting. After the growth period, most of the special rules no longer apply, and the rules under section 408 governing traditional IRAs generally apply.
The definition of a Trump account in section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii) provides that the written governing instrument creating the Trump account must meet several requirements, one of which is that no part of the account funds will be invested in any asset other than an eligible investment during the growth period.
Section 530A(b)(3)(A) provides that the term
Section 530A(b)(3)(B) provides that the term
Notice 2025-68, 2025-52 IRB 856, informed taxpayers that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to propose regulations on Trump accounts. The notice described guidance expected to be included in the proposed regulations in the form of answers to specific questions, including questions about eligible investments. Notice 2025-68 requested comments, with a comment period that ended February 20, 2026, and comments received in response to the notice are discussed below.
On March 9, 2026, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-117270-25) in the
Proposed § 1.530A-3 would provide guidance relating to eligible investments for Trump accounts. The guidance includes proposed definitions related to eligible investments, rules for determining whether an investment is an eligible investment, and rules on how a trustee
Proposed § 1.530A-3(b) would provide definitions of terms for purposes of section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii) and (b)(3). The definitions of eligible investment in proposed § 1.530A-3(b)(1) and qualified index in proposed § 1.530A-3(b)(5) restate the definitions in section 530A(b)(3)(A) and (B).
Under section 530A(b)(3)(A), an eligible investment must be either a mutual fund or an exchange traded fund (ETF). Neither
One stakeholder recommended that the definition of ETF be revised so that it would include ETF share classes of mutual funds. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with the recommendation because ETF share classes are within the category of investments ordinarily referred to as ETFs.
Under proposed § 1.530A-3(b)(2), an ETF would be defined as a domestic corporation (including a regulated investment company (RIC)) that is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, Public Law 76-768, 54 Stat. 789 (the 1940 Act), as amended, and that is either (i) an “exchange-traded fund” as defined for purposes of the 1940 Act in 17 CFR 270.6c-11(a)(1) or (ii) an entity that operates in substantially the same manner as an exchange-traded fund but that is not described in 17 CFR 270.6c-11(a)(1), such as a unit investment trust or ETF share class of a mutual fund operating as an ETF under exemptive relief granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Like Notice 2025-68, proposed § 1.530A-3(b)(4) would provide that the term
Section 530A(b)(3)(A)(i) provides that, to be an eligible investment, a mutual fund or ETF must track the returns of a qualified index. Notice 2025-68 (Q&A D-2) stated that a mutual fund or ETF tracks the returns of an index if its investment objective is to provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, replicate the performance of the index, and the fund holds investments that are reasonably expected to accomplish that objective (by, for example, holding shares of all of the stocks that are constituents of the index in proportion to their weightings).
A stakeholder recommended that guidance emphasize that the standard is a requirement to seek to replicate index returns, rather than to eliminate all deviations of fund performance from index performance. The Treasury Department and the IRS confirm that the reference to the fund's objective is intended to require a fund to seek to replicate the returns of an index.
The stakeholder also recommended clarifying that an investment fund intending to replicate the returns of an index is not always required to hold all the underlying stocks included in its chosen index. An investment fund may hold less than all of the components of an index and still closely track the index's returns. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that tracking the returns of an index does not require holding each component of the index. The example in the notice was illustrative and not an additional requirement, and proposed § 1.530A-3(c)(1) would acknowledge the possibility of tracking the returns of an index by holding less than all of its components.
Notice 2025-68 (Q&A D-2) also described investment objectives and strategies that are not consistent with tracking the returns of an index: an objective to provide investment results inverse to the performance of the index or a strategy to outperform or perform differently from the index. As examples of the latter, the notice described funds that increase or decrease exposure to some index constituents based on the judgment of advisors, or that hold assets in some or all market conditions intended to decrease or increase the volatility, risk, or current income associated with the index.
Stakeholders have asked whether actively managed investment funds pursuing a strategy other than seeking to replicate the performance of a particular index can be eligible investments. Investing Trump account funds in an investment fund that does not track the returns of an index would be directly contrary to section 530A(b)(3)(A)(i). These proposed regulations would follow section 530A(b)(3)(A)(i), under which an investment fund that is actively managed is not an eligible investment.
One stakeholder expressed concern that the discretion exercised by managers or advisors of typical index funds would prevent those funds from being eligible investments under the standards described in the notice. Managers or advisors exercise discretion in pursuing their objective to replicate the returns of an index, including determining which index components to hold and when to execute trades. The stakeholder suggested that the language of the notice describing increased or decreased exposure to index constituents based on the judgment of advisors might be read as disqualifying an investment based on these or similar exercises of discretion. The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge this concern. Accordingly, proposed § 1.530A-3(c)(2) would exclude the reference to the discretion of advisors, so that advisors can make necessary decisions in pursuit of a fund's objective to replicate the performance of an index.
The stakeholder also suggested that the reference to strategies used to “outperform” an index be eliminated as unnecessary in light of the more general reference to strategies used to “perform differently” from the index. The word “outperform” is intended to clarify that an objective to perform differently from an index includes an objective to outperform the index. Therefore, the proposed regulations do not reflect this suggestion.
One stakeholder asked for clarification regarding whether an investment fund may engage in securities lending to generate additional income while still being considered to track the returns of an index. Income from securities lending may be viewed as inconsistent with the general principle in proposed § 1.530A-3(c)(2) that an eligible investment may not use a strategy to perform differently from the relevant index, because securities lending generally increases the current income of the fund. Securities lending, however, appears to be consistent with the language and purposes of section 530A(b)(3). The statute does not mention securities lending, but securities lending by investment funds is common.
Moreover, an investment fund may engage in securities lending in a way that allows the fund to retain all of the economic benefits and burdens associated with the affected security. Section 1058(b) describes conditions under which a securities lending transaction is treated as a nonrecognition transaction to the lender. An investment fund that engages
Stakeholders requested clarification regarding whether a fund of funds may be an eligible investment. A fund of funds is an investment fund that invests in other investment funds (acquired funds). One stakeholder recommended that a fund of funds tracking multiple indices through its acquired funds be treated as tracking the returns of a qualified index. Section 530A(b)(3)(A)(i) requires an eligible investment to track the returns of “
Section 530A(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides that, to be an eligible investment, a mutual fund or ETF must not use leverage. Notice 2025-68 (Q&A D-3) stated that a mutual fund or ETF is considered to use leverage if, as a result of the fund's use of borrowings, derivatives, or other strategies that are economically equivalent to borrowings, a percentage change in the level of an index tends to cause a materially greater percentage change in the value of the fund's portfolio.
A stakeholder suggested that the leverage standard is unnecessary, because any fund using leverage as described in Q&A D-3 would also be failing to track the returns of an index under Q&A D-2. The stakeholder also explained that investment funds may use borrowing or their equivalents to gain efficient exposure to only a portion of the underlying index and that this practice, if assessed in isolation, may lead to material variations in the portfolio as compared to the performance of the underlying index. The stakeholder suggested that leverage should disqualify an investment fund only if the fund's borrowings or economic equivalents in their totality is inconsistent with the fund's investment objective of seeking to track the returns of a qualified index.
The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that the requirements in section 530A(b)(3)(A) to track the returns of an index and not to use leverage are closely related, and that in Notice 2025-68, the standard for leverage (Q&A D-3) substantially overlaps with the standard for tracking the returns of an index (Q&A D-2). The alternative standard proposed by the stakeholder, however, would deprive the leverage provision of any significance because any fund excluded for use of leverage under that alternative standard would also be excluded for not tracking the returns of a qualified index. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, agree with the stakeholder that the statutory exclusion of funds using leverage should not be read to restrict the transactions that regular index funds (those not seeking to multiply or magnify index changes) typically use to gain efficient exposure to an index. The statutory exclusion of investment funds that use leverage should be read to exclude the higher-risk leveraged funds that are less suitable for many Trump account beneficiaries. Therefore, these proposed regulations would define leverage by reference to increased risk.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(d)(1) would provide that an investment fund is considered to use leverage if the fund uses borrowings, derivatives, or other strategies that are economically equivalent to borrowings in a way that materially increases the risk of loss associated with an investment in the investment fund. Under this standard, as under Notice 2025-68, an investment fund uses leverage if, as a result of borrowings or derivatives or another economic equivalent, a change in the level of the index the returns of which the fund seeks to replicate tends to cause a materially greater proportional change in the net value of the fund's portfolio. Consistent with the stakeholder's recommendation, this standard requires an inquiry into risk associated with the fund as a whole and not one transaction in isolation.
Notice 2025-68 explained that borrowings and derivatives not entered into to multiply or magnify index returns generally would not be treated as leverage. The notice included as examples borrowings to provide liquidity for redemptions or for purchases of portfolio securities in connection with investment flows into the fund, and entering into derivatives as part of a fund's strategy to replicate the performance of an index.
Like Notice 2025-68, these proposed regulations would describe uses of borrowings and derivatives that would not be expected to constitute the use of leverage for purposes of section 530A(b)(3)(A)(ii). Under the proposed regulations, however, whether any use of borrowings or derivatives constitutes the use of leverage would depend on whether it materially increases risk of loss. Proposed § 1.530A-3(d)(2) would provide that an investment fund is not considered to use leverage merely because it borrows or uses derivatives as part of its strategy to replicate the performance of an index, so long as the borrowings or derivatives do not materially increase the risk of loss associated with an investment in the investment fund. Thus, an investment fund is not considered to use leverage merely because the fund incurs short-term borrowings to provide liquidity for redemptions or to purchase portfolio securities in connection with investment flows into the fund or because the fund uses derivatives to gain synthetic exposure to certain index components. For an investment fund that engages in securities lending, proposed § 1.530A-3(d)(2) would provide that the investment fund's obligation to return collateral to the borrower of the securities is not treated as leverage so long as the investment fund takes appropriate steps to limit the risk of loss with respect to the collateral. To limit the risk of loss with respect to cash collateral, the investment fund must hold the collateral in cash or highly liquid, conservative positions (like money market funds). To limit the risk of loss with respect to non-cash collateral, the investment fund must not sell the collateral or otherwise use the collateral (for example, by pledging it) to increase the fund's exposure to other assets.
Section 530A(b)(3)(B) provides that a qualified index is the Standard and Poor's 500 stock market index, or any other index that is comprised of equity investments in primarily U.S. companies and for which regulated futures contracts (as defined in section 1256(g)(1)) are traded on a qualified board or exchange (as defined in section 1256(g)(7)). Section 530A(b)(3)(B) also provides that a qualified index does not include any industry or sector-specific
Q&A D-5 in Notice 2025-68 stated that an index is considered to be comprised of equity investments if the index is comprised entirely of stocks and similar ownership interests in the form of partnership or membership interests.
Several stakeholders requested guidance that would allow an index with debt instruments as components to be a qualified index. Section 530A(b)(3)(B)(ii)(I) requires a qualified index to be “comprised of equity investments in primarily [U.S.] companies.” It is consistent with that statutory language for a qualified index to include some equity investments in non-U.S. companies, but not for a qualified index to include components other than equity investments. Accordingly, proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(5) would contain the same all-equity requirement as the notice.
One stakeholder recommended that a qualified index include a total-market index. While the term
Q&A D-5 stated that a company is a U.S. company if it is domestic under section 7701(a)(4). It also included a safe harbor under which an index would be treated as comprised of equity investments in primarily U.S. companies if U.S. companies represent at least 90 percent of the index based on their weightings in the index.
Stakeholders suggested that the 90-percent standard in the safe harbor was a higher threshold than what the statutory language suggests. The Treasury Department and the IRS note that a variety of provisions in the Code use “primarily” without providing a numerical threshold. A safe harbor provides certainty for some indices, so that the Standard and Poor's 500 stock market index is not the only index assured of meeting the standard. Thus, proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(7) would retain the 90-percent safe harbor approach of the notice.
Q&A D-6 in Notice 2025-68 stated that an index is industry-specific or sector-specific if the inclusion of a company depends on the kind of business or industry in which the company is engaged.
Stakeholders did not comment on that aspect of the qualified index requirement, and proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(2) would provide substantially the same rule. Under proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(1), whether an index is industry-specific or sector-specific would be determined by reference to the index methodology for the index. Proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(1) would require a qualified index to have a publicly available index methodology that describes the criteria for inclusion in the index and the construction of the index.
Q&A D-6 also provided that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indices are sector-specific. A stakeholder recommended that an index that has criteria for inclusion based on ESG factors not be described as a sector-specific index. The stakeholder explained that describing an ESG index as a sector-specific index may generate confusion about the meaning of the term as it is used in other contexts.
The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge that describing an ESG index as a sector-specific index could generate confusion about the meaning of the term. Accordingly, proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(3) would not describe an ESG index as a sector-specific index. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to exclude investment funds that track ESG indices because they limit exposure to companies in a way that makes them similar to sector-specific funds. Accordingly, under the authority provided in section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iv), proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(3) would provide that any investment fund that tracks the returns of an ESG index is not an eligible investment. Proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(3) would further provide that an ESG index includes any index that has, or is marketed as having, a focus on environmental, social, or governance factors.
Q&A D-6 also defined an index based on market capitalization, the substance of which would remain unchanged in the proposed regulations. Proposed § 1.530A-3(e)(4) would provide that an index is based on market capitalization if the inclusion of a company in the index depends on the company having a market capitalization within a specified range or over or under a specified threshold, or that meets specified ranking criteria.
Section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii) provides that, to be an eligible investment, a mutual fund or ETF must not have annual fees and expenses of more than 0.1 percent of the balance of the investment in the fund.
Q&A D-4 in Notice 2025-68 stated that an investment fund would meet the requirements of section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii) if the sum of its annual fees and its annual expenses is not more than 0.1 percent of the value of the fund's net assets. Q&A D-4 in Notice 2025-68 described a fund's annual fees as including any annual or recurring fees charged by the fund directly to the investor, as disclosed in a fund's prospectus. The notice requested comments on the appropriate treatment of fees charged for transactions.
A stakeholder recommended that all amounts that are not part of an investment fund's expense ratio, including transactional fees such as sales charges, loads, and redemption fees, be excluded from a fund's fees and expenses for purposes of section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii). Excluding all fees is inconsistent with the language in section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii), which limits “fees and expenses.” Both fees and expenses reduce the real returns to investors. Excluding transactional fees appears to be similarly inconsistent with the language and purposes of section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii), because an investment fund's fees may be entirely transactional fees and such fees reduce real returns to investors. Moreover, investment funds can structure their fees in a variety of ways. A rule that excludes some fees from the limit in section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii) based on the form of the fees would create an incentive for investment funds to charge or increase that form of fee. Therefore, the limit on fees and expenses should apply to recurring fees (as under the notice) and other fees (on which the notice requested comments).
Proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(1) would provide that an investment fund is not an eligible investment if the sum of its annual fees and annual expenses is more than 0.1 percent of the net value of its assets. Amounts charged by investment funds directly to investment fund holders are referred to as fees and addressed in proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(2). Amounts borne by investment fund holders indirectly in the form of costs incurred by investment funds are referred to as expenses and addressed in proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(3).
Proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(2)(ii) would provide that an investment fund's fees include all amounts that the fund charges its investment fund holders directly, without regard to how such amounts are computed, when they are imposed, or how such amounts are
Q&A D-4 in Notice 2025-68 indicated that annual fees and annual expenses will not include any amount that is paid to a broker or intermediary and that is not specified or imposed by or on behalf of the fund.
Stakeholders recommended that guidance clarify the treatment of charges not imposed by an investment fund, including custodial fees or fees to cover the administrative and reporting costs associated with a Trump account. One stakeholder pointed out that mutual fund account fees would be treated as fees of the mutual fund, resulting in differing treatment for mutual funds and ETFs. Another stakeholder requested clarification that amounts paid for advice or planning services are not subject to the 0.1 percent limit.
The 0.1 percent limit in section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii) is part of the definition of an eligible investment. The limit does not apply to trustee fees. Therefore, custodial fees or similar charges that are associated with a Trump account itself rather than with any particular investment fund are analyzed as trustee fees, which are discussed later in this preamble. If an account beneficiary pays an amount to an advisor for advice on whether to open a Trump account or what investment to select, and the advice and the amount are entirely independent of any investment fund, then the amount is not within the scope of the annual fees of an investment fund. Given the definition of annual fees, a rule specifically excluding an amount having no connection to any fund appears to be unnecessary and more likely to confuse than clarify the definition. A sales load, however, is part of a mutual fund's annual fees, even though the amount charged may ultimately benefit a financial intermediary, because it is a cost of investing in a particular investment fund.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(2)(iii) would provide that amounts charged to an account beneficiary by a trustee for providing an account are not treated as part of any investment fund's annual fees but as trustee fees. A fee charged by a Trump account trustee or financial intermediary for a service, such as carrying out a purchase or sale of an investment fund is not considered a part of the investment fund's fees if the fee is not charged on behalf of or at the direction of the investment fund, is not paid (directly or indirectly) to the investment fund, and is not attributable to any cost of offering the investment fund. See part IV of this Explanation of Provisions regarding fees and expenses charged by a Trump account trustee.
Q&A D-4 in Notice 2025-68 described a fund's annual expenses as the amount set forth in its prospectus as total annual operating expenses. Investment funds are already required to compute and report these amounts. A fund's total annual operating expenses is also used to compute the fund's expense ratio, which is a metric that is commonly published and referred to in comparing investment funds. No comments were received regarding the approach to annual expenses in the notice, and proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(3) would provide substantially the same rule.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(3) would provide certain additional clarifications to aid in the computation of a fund's total annual operating expenses. These include that if an investment fund's prospectus lists total operating expenses reduced by fee waivers or expense reimbursements, the reduced amount applies for purposes of section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii). In addition, proposed § 1.530A-3(f)(3) would provide that if an investment fund has multiple share classes, annual expenses are computed separately for each class, based on the expenses and assets allocable to each class.
Section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii) provides that the written governing instrument creating a Trump account must meet the requirement that no part of the account funds will be invested in any asset other than an eligible investment during the growth period.
Q&A D-7 of Notice 2025-68 stated that a trustee must have procedures in place to monitor and enforce the requirements of section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii). The Q&A stated that it is not sufficient merely for a written governing instrument of a Trump account to state the prohibition of section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii); the trustee must comply with the prohibition. The Q&A stated that the procedures may, but are not required to, be in the written governing instrument.
A stakeholder questioned whether there is authority for requiring operational compliance with the eligible investment requirements for Trump accounts. Section 530A(b)(1)(C) imposes limits by reference to the written governing instrument of a Trump account, which cannot be enforced by the IRS. Therefore, the stakeholder suggests any failure by a trustee to follow the written governing instrument is a contractual violation enforceable by the account beneficiary.
The Treasury Department and the IRS interpret the language of section 530A(b)(1)(C) as requiring not just specific language to be contained in the written governing instrument but also as requiring operational compliance with the language set forth in the written governing instrument. The trustee is in the best position to ensure that an account meets requirements of section 530A(b)(1)(C), which concern contributions, distributions, and investments. Thus, the trustee must structure its operations to ensure the account meets the requirements. Without such an operational compliance requirement, the written instrument is not, in fact, the written
This approach of requiring operational compliance with Code requirements in the written governing instrument is consistent with how the Treasury Department and the IRS have interpreted statutory rules for section 401(a) plans that, on their face, could be read to suggest only a requirement that needs to be set forth in a plan document. For example, section 401(a)(9) provides that “[a] trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under this subsection
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g) would provide procedures for a trustee to follow to ensure that Trump account funds are invested in accordance with section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii), including for selection of eligible investments and default eligible investments, situations in which funds temporarily need not be invested in an eligible investment, and monitoring of investment funds. Many of these procedures involve an account beneficiary, who generally will have
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(2) would provide that the written governing instrument must include the procedures described in proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4), (5), and (7). Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(3) would clarify that if an account does not comply with section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii), taking into account the flexibility added by proposed § 1.530A-3(g), the account will cease to be a Trump account and cease to be an IRA.
Q&A D-7 of Notice 2025-68 also stated that these procedures with respect to the growth period must include at least that the trustee must offer only eligible investments as investment options for a Trump account, and the trustee must select a default eligible investment and must promptly invest any uninvested funds in the default eligible investment, unless directed by or on behalf of the account beneficiary to invest the funds in a different eligible investment.
Stakeholders sought clarification regarding default eligible investments, including whether a trustee may have only one default eligible investment, whether any eligible investment may be the default eligible investment, and whether an account beneficiary may specify another eligible investment as the designated eligible investment for that particular account beneficiary.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(i) would provide that a trustee must limit investments available for Trump account investments to investment funds that the trustee has determined are eligible investments.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(ii) would provide that a trustee must establish for each Trump account under the trustee's administration a default eligible investment in which all contributions, proceeds from sales or other dispositions, and any other amounts for investment (other than amounts addressed by proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(iii)) will be invested unless the account beneficiary specifies that the Trump account be invested in a different eligible investment for the contribution or other amount. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(ii) also would provide that the default eligible investment can be a single eligible investment or a combination of eligible investments in specified proportions, and that the default eligible investment(s) must be clearly disclosed to account beneficiaries. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(ii) would provide that the requirement to establish a default eligible investment does not preclude arrangements between a trustee and the account beneficiary that give effect to different preferences on an ongoing basis.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(iii) would provide that the trustee of a Trump account must disclose to the account beneficiary how amounts received as dividends or other distributions from eligible investments will be invested unless the account beneficiary gives different instructions regarding the dividends and distributions. For example, amounts received as dividends and distributions might be reinvested in the same eligible investments that paid the dividends or other distributions or invested in the Trump account's default eligible investment. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(4)(iii) would also provide that the trustee may give effect to directions from the account beneficiary that a specific distribution, or distributions generally, be invested in a different way that complies with section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii).
Q&A D-8 of Notice 2025-68 stated that, during the growth period, the trustee's procedures may not permit funds in a Trump account to be invested in a money market fund but may permit an amount received as a contribution, a dividend or other distribution from an eligible investment, or an amount received as a result of a disposition (such as sale) of an eligible investment, to be held in cash for the time reasonably necessary to complete the investment of the amount in an eligible investment.
Stakeholders recommended that amounts should be permitted to be held in cash for the time reasonably necessary to complete a distribution, rollover, or payment of fees. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(5)(i) would provide that a trustee may permit an amount received in a Trump account as cash, such as an amount received as a contribution, proceeds of a sale or other disposition, or a distribution, to be held in cash for the time reasonably necessary to complete an investment, reinvestment, distribution, rollover, payment of fees, or other transaction permitted under section 530A.
Q&A D-9 of Notice 2025-68 stated that, during the growth period, the trustee's procedures must require reasonable ongoing monitoring by the trustee regarding whether a fund held by a Trump account continues to be an eligible investment. This Q&A also stated that in the event that a fund held by a Trump account ceases to be an eligible investment during the growth period, the Trump account will no longer be permitted to be invested in such fund.
Stakeholders made a variety of recommendations and sought clarification with respect to the trustee's obligation to monitor the status of its existing investments as eligible investments. These recommendations include providing a safe harbor regarding when a trustee would be treated as satisfying its obligations relating to monitoring investment funds. For example, one stakeholder recommended that trustee monitoring be based on periodic review and reliance on public disclosures. Stakeholders also recommended a 120-day grace period for a fund to regain eligible investment status (by, for example, adjusting its fees and expenses) or for the trustee to dispose of shares in the fund and reinvest the proceeds in an eligible investment.
The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that day-to-day monitoring by a trustee regarding whether an investment fund continues to be an eligible investment raises significant practical concerns. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with stakeholders that a safe harbor requiring trustees to make periodic determinations regarding eligible investment status would be more administrable for trustees.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(6) would require that the trustee's procedures provide for monitoring of investment funds in which the trustee's Trump accounts are invested, with an initial determination whether the investment fund is an eligible investment when the trustee first offers the investment fund to any Trump account for which it is the trustee and then subsequent periodic determinations that the investment fund continues to be an eligible investment. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(6) would provide that the trustee may rely on an investment fund's prospectus and other public documents required by Federal securities laws in making determinations of eligible investment status. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(6) would also provide that a trustee is treated as monitoring investment funds in which the trustee's Trump accounts are invested if the trustee's periodic determinations occur at least once every 12 months.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(5)(ii) would provide that in the event an investment fund ceases to be an eligible investment, the trustee's procedures must require the prompt sale or disposition of shares in the investment fund and the reinvestment of the proceeds in an eligible investment. Specifically, proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(5)(ii)(A) would provide that a trustee must sell or dispose of shares in the investment fund and reinvest the proceeds within 30 days of when the investment fund
Stakeholders discussed what notice a trustee should be required to provide to an account beneficiary when an investment fund in which the account beneficiary's funds are invested ceases to be an eligible investment. One stakeholder contemplated notice to an account beneficiary before the trustee reinvests the proceeds from the sale of the fund that ceases to be an eligible investment. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that requiring notice before reinvestment unnecessarily slows down reinvestment. Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(5)(ii) would not require notice to account beneficiaries before selling or disposing of shares in the investment fund but would require notice to account beneficiaries after reinvestment of the proceeds about how the proceeds are reinvested.
Proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(7) would provide that if a trustee has adopted the required procedures but a portion of the assets in a Trump account is not invested in an eligible investment due to an administrative error by the trustee (for example, due to an oversight or mistake in applying the procedures), the trustee must sell or dispose of the assets that are not invested in an eligible investment and reinvest the proceeds in an eligible investment within 30 calendar days from the first day that portion was not invested in an eligible investment. Furthermore, the trustee must disclose to the account beneficiary the duration of the error, the assets that were held during the error period, and the amount reinvested in an eligible investment at the end of the error period.
Regarding the proposed correction of administrative errors, the Treasury Department and the IRS are considering providing a rule that would allow a trustee, in the case of its administrative error, to replace, to the extent needed, earnings in the account that the account would have had if the account had been properly invested in an eligible investment. Such replaced earnings would not be considered contributions subject to the contribution limitation under section 530A(c)(2). Comments are requested regarding such a rule.
The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize the importance of helping account beneficiaries receive the benefits of a Trump account, particularly because account beneficiaries are minors. Therefore, in addition to the proposed correction procedures included in these proposed regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding other failures under section 530A(b)(1)(C) that may be appropriate for correction and proposed corrections for such failures (taking into account that trustees must have procedures in place to prevent most such failures). The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to provide additional correction procedures for trustees, as needed, to correct certain Trump account failures. Comments are additionally requested regarding whether potential Trump account corrections should be included as part of the IRA correction procedure authorized under section 305(c) of Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459 (December 29, 2022), commonly referred to as the SECURE 2.0 Act.
Q&A D-10 of Notice 2025-68 stated that a trustee may permit funds in a Trump account to be invested in multiple eligible investments. The Treasury Department and the IRS confirm that a Trump account may be invested in any number of eligible investments, and proposed § 1.530A-3(g)(1) would provide that Trump account funds may be invested in one or more eligible investments.
The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to exercise regulatory authority conferred by section 530A(a) to issue regulations that would allow contributions of readily tradable public company stock to be made to Trump accounts as part of a philanthropic contribution. The regulations would require that the stock transferred to the Treasury Department for this purpose must satisfy certain criteria and other requirements to be treated as a charitable contribution. All other contributions to Trump accounts would continue to have to be made in cash pursuant to section 408(a)(1), and such funds would continue to be subject to the requirement in section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii) that they cannot be invested in any asset other than an eligible investment during the growth period.
Section 530A is intended to promote long-term investing for the benefit of children. Section 530A contains provisions designed to maintain a low cost for these accounts. In particular, section 530A(b)(3)(A)(iii) limits eligible investments to those with low annual fees and expenses and section 530A(g) permits the Secretary to take into account costs imposed by the trustee on the account or the account beneficiary when selecting the trustee. Additionally, commenters and other stakeholders have expressed concerns with the potential for fees and expenses to diminish the account balances over time (especially given the small initial balances and long expected holding periods). One commenter raised the concept of expressly prohibiting additional fees because such fees are not contemplated in the statutory language.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering ways to keep costs down for these accounts, and request comments on alternative ways in which this might be achieved, including the possibility of prohibiting trustees from charging any fees with respect to the account beneficiary or the eligible investments held by the account beneficiary.
The regulations are proposed to apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, except for paragraph (g) of the regulations, which is proposed to apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The proposed regulations have been designated by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as subject to review under Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA, July 4, 2025) between the Treasury Department and the OMB regarding review of tax regulations. OIRA has determined that the proposed rulemaking is significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and subject to review under Executive Order 12866 and section 1(b) of the MOA. Accordingly, the proposed regulations have been reviewed by OMB. This proposed rule is not expected to be considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because it does not impose any more than de minimis regulatory costs.
The proposed regulations would provide guidance relating to eligible investments for Trump accounts under section 530A. The proposed regulations would define terms related to eligible investments, provide rules for determining whether an investment fund is an eligible investment, and provide procedures for a trustee of a Trump account to ensure that a Trump account meets requirements concerning eligible investments.
Public Law 119-21, commonly referred to as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, added new sections 530A, 128, and 6434 to the Code. Section 530A describes Trump accounts, section 128 describes certain employer contributions to Trump accounts, and section 6434 describes the Trump accounts contribution pilot program. The proposed regulations provide guidance on eligible investments in a Trump account under section 530A(b)(3).
Section 530A defines a Trump account as an IRA with some special rules. Most special rules that distinguish Trump accounts from other IRAs apply only during the growth period. The first day of the growth period is the day the account is established, and the final day of the growth period is December 31 of the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 17. The rules for traditional IRAs generally apply after the growth period. A Trump account may be established for the benefit of a child prior to the calendar year in which the child attains age 18 if the child has been issued a social security number.
In general, distributions from Trump accounts are not permitted during the growth period. The entire balance of a Trump account may be rolled over in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a new Trump account of the account beneficiary. The entire balance of a Trump account may be rolled over in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to an ABLE account of the account beneficiary in the calendar year the account beneficiary attains age 17.
Funds in a Trump account may only be invested in eligible investments during the growth period. An eligible investment generally is a mutual fund or ETF that tracks an equity index of primarily U.S. companies, such as the S&P 500 index, does not use leverage, and has annual fees and expenses of no more than 0.1 percent of the balance of the investment in the fund.
Trump accounts may receive contributions from nonprofits, governments, employers, and individuals. In general, contributions to a Trump account are subject to an annual limit of $5,000, adjusted for inflation.
Governments and nonprofits may make qualified general contributions through the Treasury Department, and such contributions must be allocated in equal amounts to the Trump accounts of every account beneficiary in a qualified class. Qualified general contributions from governments and nonprofits through the Treasury Department do not count towards the $5,000 annual contribution limit.
Section 128 sets rules for certain employer contributions to Trump accounts. Employers may contribute to the Trump account of an employee or an employee's dependent. Section 128 employer contributions to a Trump account are excluded from the employee's income, up to an annual limit of $2,500, adjusted for inflation. Section 128 employer contributions count towards the $5,000 annual contribution limit.
Section 6434 describes the Trump accounts contribution pilot program. In the pilot program, the Secretary will pay $1,000 to the Trump accounts of eligible children. A U.S. citizen born in 2025, 2026, 2027, or 2028 who has been issued a social security number and for whom no request for a pilot program contribution has previously been processed is eligible for a pilot program contribution. Pilot program contributions do not count towards the $5,000 annual contribution limit.
All other contributions to a Trump account, including contributions from friends or family members, are non-deductible contributions (they create investment in the contract) and count towards the $5,000 annual contribution limit.
The proposed regulations (§ 1.530A-3) are just one piece of the implementation of section 530A; prior guidance addressed the election to open an initial Trump account (§ 1.530A-1), and future guidance will address other issues (§§ 1.530A-2, 1.530A-4, 1.530A-5, and 1.530A-6). The proposed regulations would define the following terms for the purposes of implementing section 530A: ETF, mutual fund, and investment fund. For implementing section 530A, the definition of ETF is taken from 17 CFR 270.6c 11(a)(1), modified to include entities that operate in substantially the same manner. For implementing section 530A, the definition of mutual fund is taken from 15 U.S.C. 80a-5(a)(1), modified to exclude ETFs. An investment fund is an ETF or a mutual fund.
The proposed regulations would provide rules for determining whether an investment fund is an eligible investment. The rules would clarify that an investment fund (1) tracks the returns of an index if it seeks to provide investment results that replicate the performance of the index and the fund holds investments that are reasonably expected to accomplish that objective, (2) uses leverage if it uses borrowings, derivatives, or other strategies that are economically equivalent to borrowings in a way that materially increases the risk of loss associated with an investment in the fund, and (3) is not an eligible investment if it charges annual fees and annual expenses of more than 0.1% of the net value of its assets. The rules would clarify that an investment fund is not an eligible investment if it corresponds to the returns of an ESG
The proposed regulations would provide procedures for a trustee of a Trump account to ensure that funds are invested in an eligible investment. A trustee would be required to ensure that investment funds available for a Trump account are eligible investments and that contributions to a Trump account are invested in an eligible investment by default. A trustee would generally be required to ensure that an investment fund held by a Trump account that ceases to be an eligible investment is disposed and the proceeds reinvested in an eligible investment within 30 days of ceasing to be an eligible investment. However, if a trustee makes periodic determinations of whether an investment fund is an eligible investment based on public documents at least once every 12 months, then the trustee would generally be permitted to rely on the periodic determinations, and the trustee would be required to ensure that an investment fund that ceases to be an eligible investment is disposed and the proceeds reinvested within 30 days of the periodic determination.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have assessed the benefits and costs of the proposed regulations relative to a no-action baseline reflecting anticipated Federal income tax-related behavior in the absence of these proposed regulations.
The proposed regulations are expected to affect 85 million children in 44 million families.
The proposed regulations would clarify how to apply the statutory requirement that investment funds held by Trump accounts track the returns of an index of equities in “primarily” U.S. companies. The proposed regulations would provide a safe harbor that an index with at least 90 percent U.S. companies by index weight is considered to be “primarily” U.S. companies. Alternatives would be to provide a safe harbor with a different percentage or no safe harbor. The 90 percent threshold is low enough to accommodate temporary changes in indexes that are generally designed to track the returns of U.S. companies and high enough to clearly align with the statutory language. A safe harbor gives trustees the legal certainty they need to provide appropriate investment fund alternatives in Trump accounts.
The statute explicitly allows investment funds to track the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500) stock market index. The companies in the S&P 500 ended 2025 with a market capitalization of $58 trillion. There are many other indexes that satisfy the safe harbor. For example, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) U.S. total market index, which includes companies that ended 2025 with a market capitalization of $65 trillion, and the Nasdaq Composite index, which includes companies that ended 2025 with a market capitalization of $35 trillion. Trustees are likely to act cautiously by choosing indexes that do not approach the safe harbor, so the impact of the safe harbor relative to a slightly different percentage or no safe harbor is likely small.
The proposed regulations would clarify how often a trustee must determine whether an investment fund held by Trump accounts is an eligible investment. The proposed regulations would allow a trustee to rely on periodic determinations of whether an investment fund is an eligible investment based on public documents if the trustee makes the periodic determinations at least once every 12 months. Alternatives would be to require assessment more frequently, such as quarterly, or to require continuous monitoring. An annual determination is frequent enough to identify changes in fund or index eligibility, while avoiding a continuous-monitoring requirement that could discourage trustees from offering otherwise appropriate investment fund alternatives. A safe harbor gives trustees the legal certainty they need to administer Trump accounts without unnecessary compliance costs.
Annual assessment is consistent with other significant financial reporting cycles. Public companies generally file one annual report on Form 10-K each year. Public companies also generally file quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the first three fiscal quarters. Requiring trustees to reassess fund eligibility more often than annually could impose recurring review obligations that exceed what is necessary to confirm that funds remain aligned with statutory requirements. Trustees are likely to act cautiously by selecting funds and indexes that clearly satisfy the requirements, so the impact of allowing annual determinations relative to a more frequent requirement is likely small.
The proposed regulations would clarify how quickly a trustee must ensure disposal of an investment fund held by Trump accounts after the fund no longer satisfies the statutory requirements (or after a periodic determination to that effect). The proposed regulations would allow a Trump account not to lose its status as a Trump account if the disposal occurs within 30 days. Alternatives would be to allow shorter or longer remediation periods or not to allow any remediation. A 30-day period is short enough to ensure that Trump accounts are not maintained in ineligible investments for an extended period and long enough to permit orderly trading and operational processing. A reasonable remediation period gives trustees the legal certainty they need to correct eligibility issues without forcing rushed transactions that may be impractical or disadvantageous.
Correction periods in other retirement and tax contexts commonly allow time for orderly correction rather than requiring immediate action. For example, under IRS self-correction rules, many significant retirement plan operational failures may be corrected before the end of the third plan year after the year of the failure. The excise tax rules for prohibited transactions also distinguish between an initial tax of 15 percent of the amount involved and an additional 100 percent tax if the transaction is not corrected within the taxable period. Compared with these longer correction frameworks, a 30-day disposal period is relatively prompt. Trustees are likely to act cautiously by selecting funds that clearly satisfy the requirements and by disposing of ineligible investments soon after an issue is identified, so the impact of the 30-day remediation period is likely small.
The proposed regulations would specify that an investment fund is not an eligible investment for Trump accounts if it corresponds to the returns of an ESG index. An alternative would be to permit funds that track ESG indexes. Whether funds that track ESG indexes are available or not in Trump
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of the OMB before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. An 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 control number.
The collections of information in these proposed regulations contain third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to ensure that no part of the account funds will be invested in any asset other than an eligible investment during the growth period as required under section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii). These collections of information generally would be used by the IRS for tax compliance purposes and by account beneficiaries and trustees to ensure the account qualifies as a Trump account.
This proposed regulation provides that beneficiaries can direct trustees how to allocate funds among eligible investments. Clients being able to allocate funds within their accounts is a usual and customary business practice. Usual and customary business records are incurred as a normal course of business activities and are excluded from the definition of burden under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2).
The proposed regulation includes third-party disclosures and associated recordkeeping requirements from trustees to account beneficiaries (or “legally responsible parties”). IRS is soliciting feedback on these collection requirements and their associated burdens. IRS anticipates that the likely respondents are businesses and for-profit organizations. Table 1 provides a high-level description of the collection requirements and the regulatory section that include additional details. Table 2 provides the estimated burden placed on trustees for each collection requirement.
The collections
Comments are specifically requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the IRS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information; (c) how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; (d) how the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Secretary hereby certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). The proposed rules would not impose a significant economic impact on any regulated entities because the regulation's economic impact on entities is generally limited to requiring procedures to be set up by the trustee to ensure compliance with the statute and the regulation, language in the written governing instrument, requiring disclosure of the default eligible investment and how dividends will be invested (or any changes thereto), making periodic (likely annual) determinations that investments are still eligible investments, and rare disclosures if a reinvestment has occurred because of an ineligible investment. Because these requirements are either one-time, rare, or limited to internal determinations, any economic impact is expected not to be significant. Additionally, the proposed regulations affect only trustees of Trump accounts, which generally should not include small entities and therefore should not affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required.
Notwithstanding this certification, the Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the impacts these proposed regulations may have on small entities.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. These proposed regulations do not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. These proposed regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
IRS Revenue Rulings, Revenue Procedures, Notices, and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Justin R. Karlin of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS also participated in its development. For further information about these proposed regulations, contact Mr. Karlin at (202) 317-6842 (not a toll-free number).
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to amend 26 CFR part 1 as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.530A-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 530A(b)(3)(A)(iv) and (g)(3).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) An “exchange-traded fund” as defined for purposes of the 1940 Act in 17 CFR 270.6c-11(a)(1); or
(ii) An entity that operates in substantially the same manner as an exchange-traded fund but that is not described in 17 CFR 270.6c-11(a)(1), such as a unit investment trust or ETF share class of a mutual fund operating as an ETF under exemptive relief granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(f)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(5)
(ii)
(B)
(
(
(6)
(7)
(h)
Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection for the
Written comments must be received on or before October 20, 2026.
Comments may bemailed to Kristen Corey, Food and Nutrition Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, 5th floor, Alexandria, VA 22314 or submitted via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kristen Corey at 703-305-2517.
Comments are invited on (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were 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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We expect four States to participate in the project, including two States that operate mandatory SNAP E&T programs and two States that operate voluntary SNAP E&T programs. The project aims to (1) explore SNAP work registrants' understanding of work requirements when certifying or recertifying for SNAP eligibility; (2) describe SNAP work registrants' experiences accessing SNAP E&T services and finding training opportunities that meet their needs; (3) assess the experiences of individuals as they participate in SNAP E&T; and (4) develop recommendations that States can use to support program participants in navigating work requirements and SNAP E&T.
To achieve the research objectives, the project will document and describe the experiences of SNAP participants in the four States through two qualitative research methods: photovoice and in-depth interviews. Photovoice engages participants in structured activities where they use photos they have taken to guide interviews with researchers. The interviews will focus on and highlight themes and issues most significant to participants about SNAP E&T. In-depth interviews will provide rich, detailed accounts of participants' thoughts, behaviors, and experiences with work requirements and in SNAP E&T programs. Finally, the project will include video interviews with SNAP E&T participants and staff that provide E&T services to create a multimedia deliverable that tells a complete story of navigating work requirements and engaging with SNAP E&T. The study team will work with FNA to select and recruit State agencies and SNAP E&T providers that offer direct services to SNAP participants to support the recruitment for photovoice and in-depth interviews.
Among individuals participating in the photovoice and in-depth interviews, 15 will also be contacted again to participate in video interviews for the multimedia deliverable; of these, 10 will be respondents and 5 will be non-respondents.
Before the start of data collection in one non-study State, the study team will pretest all photovoice activities (including the consent form, the kickoff session, the photo submission form, and the interview discussion guide) with three SNAP E&T participants. We will also pretest the in-depth interview guide with eight SNAP E&T participants in two non-study States.
To begin recruiting participants, the study team will contact 23 State SNAP agency staff, which includes State program staff and State data systems staff; 14 will be respondents and 9 will be non-respondents. All four of the State data systems staff will provide administrative data which will be used to recruit SNAP E&T participants. The study team will contact 32 staff from not-for-profit and eight staff at for-profit organizations that serve as SNAP E&T providers to support the recruitment effort for the photovoice interviews and in-depth interviews. Among staff that provide E&T services participating in the recruitment effort, eight individuals will also be contacted again to participate in interviews for the multimedia deliverable.
Corvus Energy USA Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Bellingham, Washington within Subzone 129C. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 17, 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 foreign-status materials/components include: stainless steel snap rings; steel compression springs; aluminum end plates; aluminum enclosure weldments; and, printed circuit boards (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 2.5%).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that aluminum end plates and aluminum enclosure weldments are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from China. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status.
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
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily
Applicable August 21, 2026.
Alex Cipolla or Anjali Mehindiratta, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956 or (202) 482-9127, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 13, 2026.
The products covered by this investigation are winter strawberries from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Driscoll's Operaciones S.A. de. C.V. (Driscoll's) and Mainland Farms S.A. de C.V. (Mainland Farms) that are not zero,
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Non-scope case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On August 17, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Driscoll's requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is all fresh and chilled winter strawberries (winter strawberries) from Mexico entered during the period November 1 through March 31.
Winter strawberries may be stemmed or de-stemmed, whole or sliced, imported in bulk or loose form, or may be imported in
Winter strawberries covered by this investigation are classified under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and may enter under: 0810.10.4020; 0810.10.4040; 0810.10.4060; 0810.10.4080; and prior to 2024, 0810.10.4010 and 0810.10.4090. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of oleoresin paprika from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
Applicable August 21, 2026.
Charles Doss or Kate Fracke, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202) 482-3299, respectively.
On February 6, 2026, Commerce published its
For a complete description of the events that followed the
The product covered by this investigation is oleoresin paprika from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in April 2026, Commerce conducted verification of the subsidy information reported by Mane Kancor Ingredients Private Limited (Mane Kancor) and Synthite Industries Pvt. Ltd (Synthite).
In the
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For the list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Based on our review and analysis of the information received during verification and comments received from parties, for this final determination, we made certain changes
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for the two mandatory respondents, Mane Kancor and Synthite. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we continue to calculate individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Mane Kancor and Synthite that are not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
The provisional measures in this investigation expired on June 6, 2026. Because Commerce has reached an affirmative final determination, suspension of liquidation will continue with respect to all applicable entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 6, 2026, the date of publication of the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of oleoresin paprika in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of oleoresin paprika from India. As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days after this final determination, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of import of oleoresin paprika from India. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is the coloring additive oleoresin paprika. Oleoresin paprika is a viscous, highly colored liquid in various shades of red or orange made from the extract of Capsicum peppers. Covered merchandise
Subject oleoresin paprika may be blended with oil or water prior to importation or may be imported in its crude or unstandardized form. Subject oleoresin paprika may also be blended with emulsifiers or preservatives. The scope includes all oleoresin paprika meeting the specifications above regardless of whether or not blended with or soluble in oil or water, and regardless of weight, pungency, quality, solvent content, or additives. Further, the scope includes crude or unstandardized oleoresin paprika that has been blended, finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, if the blending, finishing, packaging, or processing performed would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope. Oleoresin paprika that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with oleoresin paprika from sources not subject to this investigation, or when commingled with other oleoresins. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3203.00.8000 and 3301.90.1010. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheading 1301.90.9190, 1302.19.9140, and 3205.00.0500. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that oleoresin paprika from India is being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
Applicable August 21, 2026.
Matthew Palmer or Elizabeth Talbot Russ, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1678 or (202) 482-5516, respectively.
On April 2, 2026, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this investigation is oleoresin paprika from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in April through June 2026, we conducted verifications of the sales and cost information submitted by the mandatory respondents, Synthite Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Synthite) and Mane Kancor Ingredients Private Ltd. (Mane Kancor), for use in the final determination.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
We made certain changes to the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all exporters and producers not individually examined,
In this investigation, Commerce calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Synthite and Mane Kancor that are not zero,
In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce determines that critical circumstances do not exist for Mane Kancor, Synthite, and all other producers/exporters. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POI, April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 2, 2026, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation. Accordingly, because Commerce made an affirmative final determination for countervailable export subsidies,
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of oleoresin paprika from India no later than 45 days after this final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section above.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This final determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this investigation is the coloring additive oleoresin paprika. Oleoresin paprika is a viscous, highly colored liquid in various shades of red or orange made from the extract of Capsicum peppers. Covered merchandise includes all oleoresin paprika, regardless of pepper variety, with an American Spice Trade Association (ASTA) value of at least 500 or a color unit (CU) value of at least 20,000 as determined by spectrophotometric measurement. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry numbers for oleoresin paprika are 68917-78-2 and 84625-29-6; the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) number is 977006-45-3; the Flavoring Extract Manufacturers' Association (FEMA) number is 2834; and the E number is E160c. Subject oleoresin paprika may also be referred to by other product names, including, but not limited to, paprika oleoresin, oleoresin of paprika, paprika extract, extract of paprika, paprika oil, or paprika essential oil.
Subject oleoresin paprika may be blended with oil or water prior to importation or may be imported in its crude or unstandardized form. Subject oleoresin paprika may also be blended with emulsifiers or preservatives. The scope includes all oleoresin paprika meeting the specifications above regardless of whether or not blended with or soluble in oil or water, and regardless of weight, pungency, quality, solvent content, or additives. Further, the scope includes crude or unstandardized oleoresin paprika that has been blended, finished, packaged, or otherwise processed in a third country, if the blending, finishing, packaging, or processing performed would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope. Oleoresin paprika that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled with oleoresin paprika from sources not subject to this investigation, or when commingled with other oleoresins. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3203.00.8000 and 3301.90.1010. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheading 1301.90.9190, 1302.19.9140, and 3205.00.0500. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing countervailing duty (CVD) orders on silicon metal from Australia and Norway.
Applicable August 21, 2026.
Kyle Clahane at (202) 482-5449 (Australia) or Stefan Smith at (202) 482-4342 (Norway), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on June 30, 2026, Commerce published in the
The product covered by these orders is silicon metal from Australia and Norway. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
Based on the above-referenced affirmative final determinations by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of silicon metal from Australia and Norway,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of silicon metal from Australia and Norway. With the exception of entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before the publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, as further described below, countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of silicon metal from Australia and Norway entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 26, 2025, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of silicon metal from Australia and Norway, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the
The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows, the all-others rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed below.
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigations, Commerce published the
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, Commerce instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, certain unliquidated entries of silicon metal from Australia and Norway entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 24, 2026, the date on which the provisional CVD measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the Procedural Guidance, for orders published in the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the CVD orders with respect to silicon metal from Australia and Norway, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at
These CVD orders are published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders cover all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these orders.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) orders on silicon metal from Australia and Norway.
Applicable August 21, 2026.
Jacob Waddell (Australia), Office VI, telephone: (202) 482-1369; Brittany Bauer (Norway), Office V, telephone: (202) 482-3860; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on June 30, 2026, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less than fair value (LTFV) investigations of silicon
The product covered by these orders is silicon metal from Australia and Norway. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
As noted above, on August 14, 2026, in accordance with 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of silicon metal from Australia and Norway that are sold in the United States at LTFV.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of silicon metal from Australia and Norway. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of silicon metal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 9, 2026, the date of the publication of the
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of silicon metal from Australia and Norway, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extends the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of exports of silicon metal from Australia and Norway, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months in these investigations.
Commerce published the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the final rule titled “
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to silicon metal from Australia and Norway, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and countervailing duty orders currently in effect at
These AD orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of the orders.
Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
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
To enhance the supply chain security and domestic production of U.S. MHDVs and automobiles, Proclamation 10984 authorized the Secretary to reduce tariffs owed under Proclamations 9704 and 9705 by up to half the otherwise applicable rate for aluminum or steel producers that operate production facilities in Canada or Mexico and supply U.S. motor vehicle manufacturers. Such adjustments are to be limited to quantities of aluminum or steel equal to newly committed U.S. production capacity, as determined by the Secretary.
Proclamation 10984 provides that the adjusted tariff rate under Proclamations 9704 and 9705 may be no less than 25 percent, and that the adjusted tariff rate is only available for imports of aluminum and steel that qualify for preferential tariff treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and that were respectively smelted and cast or melted and poured in Canada or Mexico.
Proclamation 10984 directed the Secretary to administer this program in a manner consistent with the need to address the national security threats the President found in Proclamation 9704, Proclamation 9705, Proclamation 9888 of May 17, 2019 (Adjusting Imports of Automobiles and Automobile Parts into the United States) (84 FR 23433), and Proclamation 10984. The Secretary has determined that it is necessary to establish a process for firms that operate production facilities in Canada and Mexico to apply for the adjusted tariffs, as authorized in Proclamation 10984, based on the quantities of aluminum or steel equal to newly committed U.S. production capacity. The Secretary has determined that only increased commitments to produce primary steel and primary aluminum should be eligible because these commitments address key bottlenecks and will increase the supply of U.S. steel and aluminum for downstream producers of automobiles and MDHVs. For purposes of these procedures, “primary steel” means any semi-finished or finished steel product that was first produced in a liquid state in a steel making furnace and “primary aluminum” means new aluminum metal that is produced from alumina (or aluminum oxide) by the electrolytic Hall-Heroult process.
The Secretary has also determined that, for purposes of these procedures, commitments to increase production capacity of primary steel and primary aluminum that supports U.S. production capacity of key products is limited to commitments to increase capacity of primary steel and primary aluminum that supports U.S. production capacity for automobiles, MHDVs, automobile parts, and MHDV parts (MHDVPs). Proclamation 10984 identifies automobiles and MHDVs as examples of key products. As automobile parts and MHDVPs are critical inputs to MHDVs and automobiles, and as much of the steel and aluminum contained in automobiles and MHDVs is first incorporated into automobile parts and MHDVPs, the Secretary determined that automobile parts and MHDVPs are also “key products” under these procedures, consistent with the purpose of Proclamation 10984.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR). Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2026.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The applicant submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
In January 2025, an aggregation of upwards of 90 individual NARWs were spotted on Jeffrey's Ledge and persisted for over 3 weeks. During that time, vessels from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts were actively fishing lobster gear, creating an area of potentially high NARW entanglement risk. Using vessel tracking data and sightings information, ME DMR identified the area of greatest overlap between recently set lobster gear from Maine vessels and NARW sightings. Maine vessels took voluntary action to reduce the entanglement risk by removing an endline from gear that was actively being fished in the area, delaying the setting of gear into deeper waters, and/or delaying setting gear at all. The 2025 NARW aggregation highlighted the potential to execute dynamic management, of which ME DMR is interested in investigating further.
This EFP would not allow for any changes to regular commercial lobster fishing activities regarding trap limits, soak times, catch,
If ME DMR triggered a dynamic management response, data would be collected on how many whales were present, for how long, and the size of the area where participating vessels removed/dropped an endline. For each participating vessel, data would also be collected on the time between initial whale detections and any removed/dropped endlines, how many endlines were removed/dropped, and how long endlines were removed/dropped. Additional information regarding delaying the setting of gear, setting gear in a different area, or trawling up would also be collected. Data would help provide feedback to managers on the feasibility of implementing a dynamic management program in the future.
ME DMR has requested to exempt participants from EFP trip reporting requirements, stating that this requirement is a barrier to recruiting fishermen for this project and is duplicative of the required electronic vessel trip reporting. EFP trip reporting requirements assist NMFS in monitoring trips taken under an EFP, and to help identify vessels that are operating in ways that would otherwise not be allowed. There are no sensitivities related to catch that NMFS needs to document at the trip level. NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement has indicated that there are other means by which it could monitor, perform outreach on, and enforce regulations on vessels participating in this EFP. For these reasons, NMFS recommends waiving the EFP trip reporting requirements for vessels operating under this EFP. This would be consistent with other EFP's where NMFS has waived the trip reporting requirements. NMFS may reevaluate this waiver should it become evident that EFP trip-level reporting is warranted or needed.
All vessels participating in the EFP would adhere to current approach regulations—a 500-yard (457-meter) buffer zone created by a surfacing right whale—and must depart immediately at a safe and slow speed, in accordance with current regulations. Hauling any lobster gear would immediately cease (by removal) to accommodate the regulation and be reinitiated only after it was reasonable to assume the whale had left the area.
ME DMR proposed the following best practices and risk reduction measures:
• All vessels would operate within a 10-knot (18.5 kilometers per hour) speed limit when whales were observed;
• All vessels would report all right whale sightings to NMFS via
• All vessels would provide mandatory, weekly gear loss reports to ME DMR; and
• Upon aggregation dispersal, ME DMR would work with participating vessels to return their gear to its required configuration within 30 days.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Sara Young (File Nos. 29313 and 29621) and Amy Hapeman (File No. 29749); at (301) 427-8401.
The requested permits have been issued under the MMPA of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance was based on a finding that such permits: (1) were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Brandon Southall, Ph.D., Southall Environmental Associates, Inc., 9099 Soquel Drive, Suite 8, Aptos, CA 95076, has applied for an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 26329.
Written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2026.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Amy Hapeman or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 26329 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 26329, issued on October 21, 2022 (87 FR 68133, November 14, 2022), authorizes the permit holder to study behavioral responses of 17 cetacean species in California waters. Researchers seek to identify key characteristics of species-typical calling, diving, feeding, social, and movement behavior in cetaceans, and under what conditions and contexts these behaviors are affected by human noise disturbance. Researchers may approach cetaceans by vessel for observations, suction-cup tagging, collection of sloughed skin, acoustic playbacks, prey mapping, photo-identification, and unintentional harassment. Five pinniped species may be unintentionally harassed during fieldwork. The permit holder requests to amend the permit to consolidate and improve the management and reporting of fieldwork that currently occurs with collaborating scientists under several research permits as follows: (1) add suction-cup tagging and sloughed skin collection as procedures for six authorized odontocete species; (2) allow deployment of suction-cup tags by uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) in addition to attachment by pole; (3) authorize the use of a suction-cup tag unit that has a built-in echosounder; (3) authorize active acoustics for prey mapping for all authorized species; (4) authorize biopsy sampling for all cetacean species that could be tagged; (5) increase take numbers for multiple cetacean species for currently authorized methods in addition to new requested methods including: invasive (darb/barb or deep-implant) tagging and UAS surveys for counts, observations, photo-ID, photography/videography, and photogrammetry; and (6) update the personnel list and their roles. See the application's take table for details on take numbers and methods for each species. The permit would be valid until March 31, 2028.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Edward Charles, Open Plant Studios, 27A Regent Street, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 4HG, United Kingdom, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on marine mammals.
Written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2026.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin, Ph.D., or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a 5-month permit to film humpback whales (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its Joint Hawaii Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panel (AP) and Bottomfish Advisory Review Board (BARB), American Samoa FEP AP, Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC), Mariana Archipelago FEP Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) AP, and Social Science Planning Committee (SSPC) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held between August 28 through September 3, 2026. For specific times and agendas, see
The Council will hold its Joint Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP and BARB, American Samoa FEP AP, FIAC, Mariana Archipelago FEP CNMI AP, SSPC meetings in a hybrid format with in-person and remote participation (Webex) options available for the members and the public. In-person attendance for the Joint Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP and BARB, FIAC
Contact Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The Joint Hawaii Archipelago FEP AP and BARB will be held between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. (Hawaii Standard Time [HST]) on Friday, August 28, 2026. The American Samoa FEP AP be held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. (Samoa Standard Time [SST]) on Tuesday, September 1, 2026. The FIAC will be held between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. (HST) on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. The Mariana Archipelago FEP CNMI AP will be held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. (Chamorro Standard Time [ChST]) on Thursday, September 3, 2026. The SSPC meeting will be held between 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. (HST) on Thursday, September 3, 2026.
Public Comment periods will be provided in the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The DoD (referred to herein as “the Department,” “Department of War” or “DoW”) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) as a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee.
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of War, 703-692-5952.
The RFPB is being renewed pursuant 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 175 and 10301 and in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 of Title 5, U.S.C. (commonly known as “the Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and 41 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the RFPB's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at:
The RFPB provides independent advice and recommendations on the reserve components on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components. The RFPB may act on those matters referred to by the Chair and on any matter raised by a member of the RFPB or the SecWar. All RFPB work, including subcommittee work, will be in response to written terms of reference or taskings approved by the SecWar or the Deputy Secretary War (“the DoW Appointing Authority”), or the Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness unless otherwise provided by statute or Presidential directive.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 10301(c), the RFPB shall be composed of 20 members, appointed, or designated as follows:
a. A civilian appointed by the SecWar from among persons determined by the Secretary to have the knowledge of, and experience in, policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters necessary to carry out the duties of the RFPB, who shall serve as chair of the RFPB.
b. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the SecWar upon recommendation of the Secretary of the Army:
1. One of whom shall be a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Army National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and
2. One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Army Reserve.
c. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the SecWar upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy:
1. One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Navy Reserve; and
2. One of whom shall be an active or retired officer of the Marine Corps Reserve.
d. Two active or retired reserve officers or enlisted members designated by the SecWar upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Air Force:
1. One of whom shall be a member of the Air National Guard of the United States or a former member of the Air National Guard of the United States in the Retired Reserve; and
2. One of whom shall be a member or retired member of the Air Force Reserve.
e. One active or retired reserve officer or enlisted member of the U.S. Coast Guard designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
f. Ten persons appointed or designated by the SecWar, each of whom shall be a U.S. citizen having significant knowledge of and experience in policy matters relevant to national security and reserve component matters and shall be one of the following:
1. An individual not employed in any Federal or State department or agency.
2. An individual employed by a Federal or State department or agency.
3. An officer of a regular component of the armed forces on active duty, or an officer of a reserve component of the armed forces in an active status, who:
• Is serving or has served in a senior position on the Joint Staff, the headquarters staff of a Combatant Command, or the headquarters staff of an armed force; and
• Has experience in joint professional military education, joint qualification, and joint operations matters.
g. A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who is a general or flag officer recommended by the chair and designated by the SecWar, who shall serve without vote, as:
1. Military adviser to the Chair;
2. Military executive officer of the RFPB; and
3. Supervisor of the operations and staff of the RFPB.
h. A senior enlisted member of a reserve component recommended by the chair and designated by the SecWar, who shall serve without vote as enlisted military adviser to the Chair.
Authority to invite or appoint individuals to serve on the RFPB rests solely with the DoW Appointing Authority, and RFPB members will be approved for a term of one-to-four years, with annual renewals, in accordance with DoW policy and procedures. No member, unless approved by the DoW Appointing Authority, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the RFPB, to include its subcommittees, or serve on more than two DoW Federal advisory committees at one time.
RFPB members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, nor active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) members. RFPB members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be designated pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee (RGE) members.
All members of the RFPB are appointed to exercise their own best judgment on behalf of the DoW, without representing any particular point of view, and to discuss and deliberate in a manner that is free from conflicts of interest. Except for reimbursement of official RFPB-related travel and per diem, RFPB members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the RFPB about the RFPB's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the RFPB. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the RFPB, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI or Committee), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access or participate in the September 23 & 24, 2026 meeting of NACIQI and provides information to members of the public regarding the meeting, including requesting to make written or oral comments. Committee members will meet in-person. Agency representatives have the option to meet in-person or virtually, and public attendees will participate virtually. The notice of this meeting is required under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10 (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act) and Section 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
The NACIQI meeting will be held on September 23 & 24, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Barnard Auditorium, Washington, DC 20202. (Only NACIQI members, accrediting agency representatives, and Department of Education staff will participate in the meeting at this address.)
George Alan Smith, Executive Director/Designated Federal Official (DFO), NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202; telephone: (202) 453-7757; email:
• the establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part H, title IV of the HEA, as amended;
• the recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations;
• the preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations;
• the eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process;
• the relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and
• any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a review of applications for renewal of recognition submitted by six accrediting agencies, as well as a compliance report submitted by one accrediting agency.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1. Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of physical therapist education programs leading to the first professional degree at the master's or doctoral level and physical therapist assistant education programs at the associate degree level and for its accreditation of such programs offered via distance education. Geographic Area of Accrediting Activities: Throughout the United States.
To ensure sufficient time for all agency reviews, including NACIQI questions and discussion, the Department requests that the agencies limit their opening statements to 10 minutes (total for one or more statements) and that the agencies avoid extended discussions about agency representatives and their backgrounds. Following the brief opening statement, the agency's presentation should focus on the regulatory criteria and, in particular, responses to areas where Department staff has recommended a finding of noncompliance or substantial compliance, or where other concerns have been raised that the agency would like to address. However, the agency should expect that questions from NACIQI members may focus on other areas.
You may register for the meeting on your computer using the link below. After you register, you will receive a confirmation email containing personalized participation links for the meeting no later than 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on September 23, 2026.
Submission of requests to make an oral comment regarding a specific accrediting agency under review, or to make an oral comment or written statement regarding other issues within the scope of NACIQI's authority:
Opportunity to submit a written statement regarding a specific accrediting agency under review was solicited by previous
Members of the public may make oral comments regarding a specific accrediting agency under review and/or other issues within the scope of NACIQI's authority. Oral comments may not exceed three minutes. Oral comments about an agency's recognition when a compliance report has been required by the senior Department official or the Secretary must relate to the criteria for recognition cited in the senior Department official's letter that requested the report, or in the Secretary's appeal decision, if any. Oral comments about an agency seeking expansion of scope must be directed to the agency's ability to serve as a recognized accrediting agency with respect to the kinds of institutions or programs requested to be added. Oral comments about the renewal of an agency's recognition must relate to its compliance with the criteria for the Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, which are available at
To request to make oral comments of three minutes or less
Submit an email to the
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 20, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Hartley, 202-987-1153.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 21, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Hartley, (202) 987-1153.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This is a reinstatement and there has been no change from the previous ICR.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 20, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ross Santy,
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Cooperating agencies: With this notice, the Commission is inviting federal, state, local, and Tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues affected by the proposal, that wish to cooperate in the preparation of any environmental document, if applicable, to follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item k. below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of any environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. 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 accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed surrender, alternatives to the proposed action, and concludes that the proposed surrender of exemption for the Glencoe Mill Hydroelectric Project would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
All comments must be filed by September 17, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system 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
For further information, contact Rebecca Martin at 202-502-6012 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Qualifying Facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should
p.
q.
r. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
m.
n.
o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
p.
q.
r. 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) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Request for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program” (EPA ICR No. 0370.28, OMB Control No. 2040-0042) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2026. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 20, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359, to (1) EPA online using
Kyle Carey, Drinking Water Infrastructure Development Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 4606M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (914) 489-1550; fax number: (202) 564-3756; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2026. 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.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
Wednesday, August 26, 2026, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Jacqueline A. Berrien Training Center, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. The meeting will also be held as a listen-only audio. The public may attend in person or connect to the audio only by following the instructions that will be posted on
If you wish to attend the meeting in person, you must email
The meeting will be open to the public.
The following items will be considered at the meeting:
In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the public will be able to observe the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on Commission meetings in the
Please telephone (202) 921-2705, or email
Raymond Windmiller, Executive Officer, (202) 921-2705.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The agency must receive comments on or before October 20, 2026.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054,
The Media Bureau shall provide notice in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 21, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the reinstatement with change of the previously approved information collection project “AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS)” OMB No 0935-0122. This information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by September 21, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Margie Shofer, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, 301-427-1696 or by email at
In 2007, AHRQ developed a systematic method for its grantees to report project progress, and important preliminary findings called the Grants Reporting System (GRS). In 2008, GRS was renamed AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS) and in addition to reporting on grant progress, also supported reporting on jobs created under contracts pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. ARRS is still being used to track grant progress and may also support administrative progress reporting for AHRQ-funded research activities conducted under contracts and challenge competition awards, as applicable. Such information may be entered by award recipients, contractors, or authorized AHRQ officials, as appropriate. ARRS is no longer used for contract job creation.
The system addressed the shortfalls in the previous reporting process and established a consistent and comprehensive reporting solution for AHRQ. The ARRS provides a centralized repository of AHRQ-supported research progress and administrative project information across grants, and where applicable, research contracts and challenge competition awards, that can be used to support initiatives within the Agency. This includes future research planning and support to administration activities such as performance monitoring,
This Project seeks to answer the following research questions:
(1) What progress has been demonstrated across AHRQ-funded research activities and related funding mechanisms, including grants, research contracts, and challenge completion awards, and how can the resulting progress and output data be systematically leveraged to inform future research planning and to support core administrative functions, including performance monitoring, budgeting, knowledge transfer, and strategic planning?
This Project has the following goals:
(1) To promote the transfer of critical information more frequently and efficiently and enhance the Agency's ability to support research designed to improve the outcomes and quality of health care, reduce its costs, and broaden access to effective services
(2) To increase the efficiency of the Agency in responding to ad-hoc information requests
(3) To support Executive Branch requirements for increased transparency and public reporting
(4) To establish a consistent approach throughout the Agency for information collection regarding research progress and a systematic basis for oversight and for facilitating potential collaborations among grantees
(5) To decrease the inconvenience and burden on grantees of unanticipated ad-hoc requests for information by the Agency in response to particular (one-time) internal and external requests for information
The information is being collected by AHRQ, pursuant to its statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement, and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (8). Minor revisions to the scope of respondents are being proposed to clarify applicability to AHRQ-funded research contracts and challenge competition recipients; no substantive revisions to the core reporting content are being proposed.
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
AHRQ Research Reporting System (ARRS)—Award recipients, contractors, and authorized AHRQ official, as applicable, use the ARRS system to report project progress and important preliminary findings for AHRQ-funded research activities. Reporting frequency varies based on award type and programmatic need. All users access the ARRS system through a secure online interface which requires user authentication. When status reports are due AHRQ notifies designated reporting officials via email.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents. The estimated number of respondents is 450 a year, a decrease from the last Information Collection Request, which estimated 500 reports to be collected in a year. This revised amount is based on the current number of 210 active reports and adjusted upwards to account for any new grants, research contracts, or challenge competition awards AHRQ may award in the future.
Grantees will take an estimated 30 minutes to enter the necessary data into the ARRS. Frequency of reporting varies from monthly to twice a year. Based on that, the total annualized burden hours are estimated to be 225 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden for the respondents. The total estimated cost burden for respondents is $26,725.50.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by October 20, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The data reported on the CMS-2728 is used by the Federal Government, ESRD Networks, treatment facilities, researchers and others to monitor and assess the quality and type of care provided to end stage renal disease beneficiaries. The data collection captures the specific medical information required to determine the Medicare medical eligibility of End Stage Renal Disease claimants. It also collects data for research and policy on this population.
The three main data systems available for evaluating the ESRD program and for monitoring epidemiology, access, and quality and reimbursement effects on quality are: (1) The United States Renal Data System (USRDS) provides basic data on patterns of incidence of ESRD in the United States. The USRDS database is intended to be used for biomedical research by investigators throughout the United States and abroad. The USRDS data is intended to supplement (and not replace) public use files produced by CMS. (2) United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) focus is on organ donation, transplantation and educational activities. (3) The ESRD Program Management and Medical System (PMMIS), maintained by CMS, provide the foundation data for the USRDS. This system, as required by Public Law 95-292, section C(1) (A), is designed to serve the needs of the Department of Health and Human Services in support of program analysis, policy development, and epidemiological research.
The ESRD PMMIS includes information on both Medicare and non-Medicare ESRD patients and on Medicare approved ESRD hospitals and dialysis facilities. The methods of ESRD
In October 2024, SDOH questions were formally activated within EQRS as part of the form. Concurrently, and in coordination with the Quality Incentive Program (QIP), questions 19, 21, 23, 24, and 25 were made unavailable for batch submission by dialysis organizations to reduce duplication with the QIP SDOH Screening Tool. Due to feedback from the stakeholder community the CMS-2728 form has been revised to remove SDOH vulnerability questions. Stakeholders unanimously agreed that SDOH questions are misplaced on the CMS-2728 since the form is a one-time admission document and is not designated to capture the dynamic, ongoing nature of social needs. Clinics already conduct SDOH assessments through established social worker workflows, and including questions on the CMS-2728 adds operational burden.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by October 20, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2. By
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until the September 1, 2028, expiration date.
Authority for the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on September 1, 2026, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 3215, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, (301) 796-8220,
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65, 21 CFR 14.40, and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
The Committee shall consist of a core of at least thirteen voting members including the Chair. Subject to legal and regulatory requirements, members and the Chair are selected by and serve at the discretion of the Commissioner or designee. Each member, including the Chair, will be selected from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of general oncology, pediatric oncology, hematologic oncology, immunology oncology, biostatistics, and other related professions.
Members may be invited to serve for terms of up to four years, or for less time in the discretion of the Commissioner or designee. Non-Federal members of this committee will serve as Special Government Employees or representatives. Federal members will serve as Regular Government Employees or Ex-Officios.
In addition to the voting members, the Commissioner or designee may identify consumer and/or industry representatives to join the Committee (or serve as alternate representatives) as non-voting representative member(s), via a process consistent with legal and regulatory requirements. Individuals currently employed at FDA-regulated companies, such as pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, shall not be selected to serve as members of the Committee unless this Committee is expected to address issues for which inclusion of an industry representative is required by statute. If this Committee includes an industry representative, the Commissioner or designee will determine whether to invite them to participate in meetings on a case-by-case basis, according to applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
The Commissioner or designee shall have the authority to select members of other scientific and technical FDA advisory committees to serve temporarily as voting members and to designate Special Government Employees to serve temporarily as
A quorum for the Committee is a majority of the current voting members present at the time, provided that FDA may specify a quorum that is less than a majority of the current voting members because of the size of the Committee and the variety in the types of issues that it will consider, or other reason determined appropriate in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements. 21 CFR 14.22(d).
If functioning as a medical device panel, an additional non-voting representative member of consumer interests and an additional non-voting representative member of industry interests will be included in addition to the voting members.
Members appointed to an advisory committee serve for the duration of the committee, or until their terms expire, they resign, or they are removed from membership by the Commissioner or designee. Committee members' terms may be ended prior to their date of expiration, for reasons determined to be good cause. Good cause includes excessive absenteeism from committee meetings, a demonstrated bias that interferes with the ability to render objective advice, failure to abide by established procedures, or violation of other applicable rules and regulations.
The Pediatric Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (Pediatric Subcommittee) is a permanent subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee described in Section 15 of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, Pub. L. 107-109. The Pediatric Subcommittee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of pediatric cancers and provides advice on new and emerging therapeutic alternatives for children with cancer. Its functions include evaluating and, to the extent practicable, prioritizing new and emerging pediatric cancer therapies; providing recommendations and guidance to help ensure timely access to promising new cancer therapies; and advising on ways to improve consistency in the availability of new therapeutic agents.
The Pediatric Subcommittee shall consist of up to 11 voting members appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services from the membership of the Pediatric Advisory Committee and the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. As needed for the scientific and ethical consideration of pediatric cancer topics, the Pediatric Subcommittee may include or request participation from pediatric oncology specialists, including specialists from the National Cancer Institute, statisticians, representatives of pediatric cancer patients or patient-family organizations, representatives of the nursing community, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, pediatric pharmacologists, and other scientific experts. Relevant expertise includes pediatric oncology, general oncology, hematologic oncology, immunologic oncology, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics, pediatric therapeutics, patient and family perspectives, and related scientific and ethical expertise.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee.
Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the public interest:
1. Annual budget.
Annual budget and expected costs: $286,942.
a. Federal personnel on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis.
The estimated person years of Federal staff support is .40 at an estimated annual cost of $70,265.
b. Other Federal internal costs.
The anticipated total value in USD of other internal costs, such as cost associated with IT supplies for meeting is $73,958.
c. Proposed payments to members.
The estimated annual payment to members is $39,090.
d. Proposed number of members.
The anticipated number of members is thirteen.
e. Reimbursable costs.
The estimated annual reimbursable costs, including travel and related expenses for members, is $41,159.
2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be recommended during the fiscal year N/A.
3. Criteria for selecting members to ensure the committee has the necessary expertise and fairly balanced membership.
4. List of all other Federal advisory committees of the agency.
5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome source.
The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee provides independent expert advice to FDA on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of cancer. The topics considered by the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee require specialized expertise in the fields of general oncology, pediatric oncology, hematologic oncology, immunology oncology, biostatistics, and related specialties that is not within the primary scope of other FDA advisory committees. Potential topics that may need committee input include products related to the topics outlined in Section (6) below. These and other issues cannot be appropriately addressed by another standing committee without diminishing the depth and relevance of the expert input provided to the Agency.
6. If the consultation is a committee renewal, a summary of the previous accomplishments of the committee and the reasons it needs to continue.
On the afternoon of April 30, 2026, the Committee discussed supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 218197/S-004, for Truqap (capivasertib) tablets, submitted by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with abiraterone for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) that is PTEN-deficient as detected by an FDA-approved test. Agency Action: The Agency is reviewing recommendations made at the meeting.
Between May 20-21, 2025, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee met to discuss the following: On the morning of May 20, 2025, the Committee discussed supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) 761309/S-001, for COLUMVI (glofitamab) injection, submitted by Genentech, Inc. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL, NOS) who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The issues the Committee discussed focused on how the differential results observed in the Asian and Non-Asian regions impacted the overall interpretation of the STARGLO trial results and the generalizability to a U.S. patient population. The Committee members were in near unanimous agreement (8 Noes and 1 Yes) that the STARGLO population and trial results are not applicable to the proposed U.S. patient population. Agency Action: The Agency is reviewing recommendations made at the meeting.
On the afternoon of May 20, 2025, the Committee discussed sBLA 761145/S-029, for DARZALEX FASPRO (daratumumab and hyaluronidase) injection, for subcutaneous use, submitted by Janssen Biotech, Inc. The proposed indication (use) is as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). The issues the Committee discussed focused on the clinical meaningfulness of the efficacy endpoints assessed in the AQUILA trial, and the benefit-risk of daratumumab hyaluronidase for the intended high-risk (SMM) population. The majority of Committee members (6 Yeses and 2 Noes) agreed that the results from the AQUILA trial provided sufficient evidence to support a favorable benefit-risk profile for Dara SC for patients with high-risk SMM. Agency Action: The
On the morning of May 21, 2025, the Committee discussed new drug application (NDA) 215793, for UGN-102 (mitomycin) intravesical solution, submitted by UroGen Pharma, Inc. The proposed indication (use) is for the treatment of adult patients with low-grade intermediate risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (LG-IR-NMIBC). The issues the Committee discussed focused on whether randomized trialsshould be required in the future to assess the effectiveness oftherapies in LG-IR-NMIBC given the uncertainty regarding interpretation of study results. The Committee was split with a slight majority voting that the overall benefit-risk of UGN-102 was not favorable in patients with recurrent LG-IR-NMIBC (5 Noes and 4 Yeses). Agency Action: The Agency is reviewing recommendations made at the meeting.
On the afternoon of May 21, 2025, the Committee discussed supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 211651/S-013, for TALZENNA (talazoparib) capsules, submitted by Pfizer Inc. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with enzalutamide for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The issues the Committee discussed focused on whether efficacy should be formally evaluated in a biomarkernegative population when the biomarker is predictive of response and the prevalence of the biomarker-negative group is high. The Committee members were in unanimous agreement (8 Noes, and 0 Yeses) that the results from the TALAPRO-2 trial were not sufficient to conclude a favorable benefit-risk profile for adding talazoparib to enzalutamide in patients with non-HRRm mCRPC. Agency Action: The Agency is reviewing recommendations made at the meeting.
On July 17, 2025, the Committee discussed BLA 761440, belantamab mafodotin submitted by GlaxoSmithKline LLC, for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy; and in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy including lenalidomide. The majority of Committee members (5 Noes, 3 Yeses) agreed that the overall benefit-risk of belantamab mafodotin in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone was not favorable at the proposed dosage in the proposed patient population. The Committee was nearly in unanimous agreement (7 Noes, 1 Yes) that the overall benefit-risk of belantamab mafodotin in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone was not favorable at the proposed dosage in the proposed patient population. Agency Action: The Agency is reviewing recommendations made at the meeting.
7. Explanation of why the committee/subcommittee is essential to the conduct of agency business.
In conclusion, this public interest determination documents that renewing the committee is in the public interest, essential to the conduct of agency business, and that the information to be obtained is not already available through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 20, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
This revised ICR contains two new forms. The first is the Employer's Agreement to Loan Repayment Match/Request for a Waiver of the Loan Repayment Match form, which is
This proposed ICR also contains updated terminology with respect to Disadvantaged Background and accompanying definitions by updating the following:
• Changing form title to “Certification Regarding Vulnerable Background,”
• Replacing “disadvantaged” with “vulnerable” throughout the form, and
• Replacing “environmentally disadvantaged” with “geographically vulnerable.”
These changes are needed to align the form with the Administration's priority of reinforcing programs that direct resources to areas of greatest need to improve health outcomes. The FLRP statute defines eligible individuals as coming from “disadvantaged backgrounds” (42 U.S.C. 293b(a)) but does not define the term. HRSA's use of “vulnerable background” operationalizes the statutory term by identifying individuals whose geographic or economic circumstances inhibited their ability to obtain the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to enroll in and graduate from an eligible health professions school. This approach remains consistent with the statute's intent while incorporating more current terminology. These updates were made throughout the form to improve consistency and help ensure that applicants and reviewers understand the criteria using current terminology.
FLRP will define “vulnerable background” as “coming from a geographically vulnerable background or an economically vulnerable background that has inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to enroll in and graduate from an eligible health professions school.”
Examples of indicators that an individual comes from a geographically vulnerable background include, but are not limited to:
• Individuals who graduated from a high school with low average SAT/ACT scores or below average state test results.
• Individuals from a school district where 50 percent or less of graduates go to college.
• Individuals raised in households where language barriers affected education access.
• Individuals from a high school where at least 30 percent of enrolled students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
• Individuals who are the first generation in their family to attend college.
An individual from an economically vulnerable background is defined as someone who:
• Comes from a low-income family. Low-income family is defined as a family that has an annual income below the 200 percent of HHS's poverty guidelines;
• Is eligible for a Pell Grant; and/or
• Comes from a family that receives public assistance (
The Secretary defines a `low-income family' for programs included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act as having an annual income that does not exceed 200 percent of HHS's poverty guidelines, which are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's low-income threshold. This threshold is simplified to facilitate the determination of financial eligibility for some federal programs and further adjusted by the Secretary based on the Consumer Price Index. Family is defined as a group of two or more individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption who live together, or an individual who is not living with any relatives.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) seeks licensees for matched patient-derived 3D Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant glioma cell lines, 403L and 403H, generated from the same patient before and after malignant transformation from WHO grade 2 to WHO grade 4 disease. This research material provides an opportunity to study IDH-mutant glioma progression, temozolomide-associated hypermutation, invasion, metabolism, and treatment resistance.
Inquiries related to this license opportunity should be directed to: Michael Pollack, Unit Supervisor, NCI, Technology Transfer Center, Email:
IDH-mutant gliomas often begin as lower-grade tumors but remain incurable and frequently progress to higher-grade disease through malignant transformation. This is clinically important but difficult to study because matched low-grade and high-grade tumor materials from the same patient are rare. Further, fixed tumor specimens are limited for repeated mechanistic or drug-response experiments.
Researchers at the NCI developed a matched pair of patient-derived cell models, 403L and 403H, from the same patient before and after malignant transformation. 403L was established from a WHO grade 2 IDH-mutant astrocytoma. 403H was derived from the recurrent WHO grade 4 tumor following radiation and temozolomide treatment. Both cell lines: (1) grow as 3D spheroids, (2) retain endogenous IDH1 R132H expression, and (3) were authenticated to the patient's germline by short tandem repeat (STR) profiling (100% match for 403L; 93.33% match for 403H).
The high-grade 403H line shows increased invasive behavior, temozolomide-associated hypermutation (tumor mutational burden of 70.07/Mb vs. 3.96/Mb in 403L), upregulated epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) signaling (whereas Notch signaling is enriched in 403L), and changes in glioma-associated metabolism, including 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), glutamine, fatty acid metabolism, and lactate/pyruvate flux. Furthermore, 403H showed significantly greater 3D invasion than 403L (p<0.0001). 403H formed infiltrative high-grade glioma in 4 of 5 orthotopically xenografted NSG mice. In contrast, 403L did not form tumors within 18 months.
“This Notice is in accordance with 37 CFR 404.4 Authority to grant licenses.”
Publications:
• Kim O, et al. A patient-derived cell model for malignant transformation in IDH-mutant glioma. (
Patents: PCT/US2024/054179, filed November 1,2024.
• Molecular classification and diagnosis of CNS and kidney tumors, including difficult-to-classify and low-confidence cases.
• Diagnostic subtyping aligned to WHO-guided entities.
• Reference-lab and hospital-lab deployment.
• Clinical trial stratification and translational research cohort harmonization.
• Multi-classifier diagnostic decision support.
• Cancer treatment development.
• Developed from a rigorously curated, large reference set of methylation profiles.
• Clinically relevant CNS diagnostic.
• CNS tumor methylation classes not represented in existing tools, expanding diagnostic coverage.
• Clinical-impact analysis creating superior diagnostic precision.
• Superior classifier for kidney cancer.
• Superior classifiers for multiple solid, difficult-to-diagnose tumors.
• Integrative into clinical workflows, improving diagnostic practices and enhancing patient care.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 19, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2621, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of December 10, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 19, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2619, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of January 8, 2027 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 19, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2626, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The current effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of extension and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning this annual requirement for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FEMA to identify current capability levels for all States, territories, urban areas, and Tribes receiving non-disaster preparedness grant funds administered by DHS.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This package is an extension to the collection titled the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)/Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Unified Reporting Tool under OMB Control Number 1660-0131. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA) (Pub. L. 109-295), as amended by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53), established an annual preparedness reporting requirement for States and territories through the State Preparedness Report (PKEMRA Section 652(c), 6 U.S.C. 752(c)). FEMA subsequently expanded preparedness reporting through the Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR), which is now completed annually by States, territories, urban areas, and Tribes receiving DHS non-disaster preparedness grant funding. Each report must include a description of current capability levels, a discussion of the extent to which target capabilities identified in the applicable state homeland security plan and other applicable plans are unmet, and an assessment of resources needed to meet the preparedness priorities established under PKEMRA Section 646(e) (6 U.S.C. 746(e)), including: (i) an estimate of the amount of expenditures required to attain the preparedness priorities; and (ii) the extent to which the use of Federal assistance during the preceding fiscal year achieved the preparedness priorities. To meet this requirement, States, territories, urban areas, and Tribes first identify capability targets through THIRA and then assess against these targets in the SPR. Through the SPR, these jurisdictions estimate their current capabilities, identify and describe gaps between current capabilities and targets, indicate their intended approach for addressing gaps in the future, and report on the impact of Federal grant dollars in building and sustaining capabilities. It is also important to note that completing the THIRA and SPR are allowable expenses under the grant awards.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of December 23, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of November 27, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The current effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Comments due date: September 21, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
The information collection burden associated with designated housing is required by statute. Section 10 of the Housing Opportunity and Extension Act of 1996 modified Section 7 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to require public housing agencies (PHAs) to submit a plan for HUD approval before a project(s) can be designated as either elderly only, disabled only, or elderly and disabled. In this plan, PHAs must document why the designation is needed and provide all of the following information as required by 42 U.S.C. 1437e(d):
“A plan under this subsection for designating a project (or portion of a project) for occupancy under subsection (a)(1) is a plan, prepared by the public housing agency for the project and submitted to the Secretary, that—
(1) establishes that the designation of the project is necessary—
(A) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction under the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under section 12705 of this title; and
(B) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population of the jurisdiction; and
(2) includes a description of—
(A) the project (or portion of a project) to be designated;
(B) the types of tenants for which the project is to be designated;
(C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of the designated project (or portion);
(D) how the design and related facilities (as such term is defined in section 1701q(d)(8)1 of title 12) of the project accommodate the special environmental needs of the intended occupants; and
(E) any plans to secure additional resources or housing assistance to provide assistance to families that may have been housed if occupancy in the project were not restricted pursuant to this section.”
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under Section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2026, is 4 percent. The interest rate for debentures issued under any other provision of the Act is the rate in effect on the date that the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date that the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. The interest rate for debentures issued under these other provisions with respect to a loan or mortgage committed or endorsed during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2026, is 4
Eden Teklebrhane, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5146, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-2746 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the
Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.
The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning January 1, 2026, is 4
For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:
Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended Section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under Section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).
Similarly, Section 520(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735d) provides for the payment of an insurance claim in cash on a mortgage or loan insured under any section of the National Housing Act before or after the enactment of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. The amount
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.
The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2026, is 4 percent. The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna Guido, PRA Compliance Officer, Paperwork Reduction Act Division, PRAD, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The
Description of the need for the information and proposed use:
(A) Establish access to the eLOCCS payment system.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of application from each of Randy G. Carter, James W. Vladuchek, Joseph J. Smith, and Four Mile Marker, LLC (applicant/applicants) for four respective incidental take permits (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act under the Service's approved General Conservation Plan (GCP) and final environmental impact statement for the Alabama beach mouse (ABM). A GCP is a mechanism that meets the definition of a conservation plan in the ESA and enables the programmatic permitting and conservation process to address a defined suite of proposed activities over a defined planning area. Each applicant requests an ITP to take the federally listed ABM incidental to the construction associated with residential development. We request public comment on these applications, which include the applicants' proposed habitat conservation plan, as well as on the Service's preliminary determination that the proposed permitting action may qualify under the terms of the ABM GCP. We certify that each of the applications received are statutorily complete and include the necessary information to enroll in the GCP.
Comments will be accepted on or before September 21, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments at
William Lynn, by U.S. mail (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of applications under the approved General Conservation Plan (GCP) for the Alabama beach mouse from Randy G. Carter, James W. Vladuchek, Joseph J. Smith, and Four Mile Marker, LLC for an ITP under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Randy G. Carter, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.147 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a single-family home on a 0.99-ac parcel located at 2772 W. Beach Blvd., in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $14,690.79 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's ABM conservation fund.
James W. Vladuchek, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the conversion of 0.02 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a garage with driveway on a 0.212-ac parcel located at 369 Kinzalow Lane in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $1,968.80 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's ABM conservation fund.
Joseph J. Smith, applicant, requests a modification of an existing 50-year ITP (TE42768C-0) to take Alabama beach mice via the additional conversion of 0.01 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the construction of a deck with pool
Four Mile Marker, LLC, applicant, requests a 50-year ITP to take ABM via the additional conversion of 0.034 ac of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering ABM habitat incidental to the tear down and reconstruction of a single family home on a 0.723 ac lot located at 3802 Ponce de Leon Court, Gulf Shores, Alabama. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of ABM through an in-lieu fee of $3,399.40 to the Alabama Coastal Heritage Trust's ABM conservation fund.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that reasonably foreseeable effects of the applicants' proposed projects, including the construction of a single-family home, garage, deck with a pool addition and the tear down and reconstruction of a single-family home, would have a minor effect on ABM and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would meet the requirements of the GCP and FEIS.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We also will conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER26827056 to Randy G. Carter, ITP number PER31663748 to James W. Vladuchek, ITP Number PER31737155 to Joseph J. Smith, and ITP number PER32083666 to Four Mile Marker, LLC.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. If you submit a comment at
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior (Department) gives notice that the group known as the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of the Mission San Juan Bautista has filed a documented petition for Federal acknowledgment as an American Indian Tribe with the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. The Department seeks comments and evidence from the public on the petition.
Comments and evidence must be postmarked by December 21, 2026.
Copies of the narrative portion of the documented petition, as submitted by the petitioner (with any redactions appropriate under 25 CFR 83.21(b)), and other information are available at the Office of Federal Acknowledgement's (OFA) website:
Ms. Nikki Bass, OFA Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, by phone: (202) 513-7650; or by email:
On July 31, 2015, the Department's revisions to 25 CFR part 83 became final and effective (80 FR 37861). A key goal of the revisions was to improve transparency through increased notice of petitions and providing improved public access to petitions. Today the Department informs the public that a complete documented petition has been submitted under the current regulations, that portions of that petition are publicly available on the website identified above for easy access, and that we are seeking public comment early in the process on this petition.
Under 25 CFR 83.22(b)(1), the OFA publishes notice that the following group has filed a documented petition for Federal acknowledgment as an American Indian Tribe to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of the Mission San Juan Bautista. The contact information for the petitioner is Mr. Wayne F. Pierce, 8070 La Jolla Shores Drives, La Jolla, California 92037.
Also, under 25 CFR 83.22(b)(1), OFA publishes on its website the following:
i. The narrative portion of the documented petition, as submitted by the petitioner (with any redactions appropriate under 25 CFR 83.21(b));
ii. The name, location, and mailing address of the petitioner and other information to identify the entity;
iii. The date of receipt;
iv. The opportunity for individuals and entities to submit comments and evidence supporting or opposing the petitioner's request for acknowledgment within 120 days of the date of the website posting; and
v. The opportunity for individuals and entities to request to be kept informed of general actions regarding a specific petitioner.
The Department publishes this notice and request for comment in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the amended Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance, which supersedes the previous ordinance published on May 14, 2002.
This Ordinance shall become effective August 21, 2026.
Sophia J. Torres, Acting Tribal Government Specialist, Southwest Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1001 Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque, NM 87104-2303, Phone: (505) 536-3304, Email:
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. I certify that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo duly adopted this amendment to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance by Resolution No. TC-007-26 on March 17, 2026.
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance shall read as follows:
This Ordinance amends and restates Article 64 and supersedes Tribal Ordinance No. 004-02 as published in the
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Tribal Council as the duly constituted traditional governing body of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, a federally recognized Indian tribe exercising all inherent governmental powers, fiscal authority and tribal sovereignty as recognized in the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-89 as codified in 25 U.S.C. 1300g), and its lawful authority to provide for the health, safety, morals, welfare, tribal economic development and self-sufficiency of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, the Tribal Council hereby enacts this Amended and Restated Ordinance for the purpose of regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The Pueblo, acting through the Tribal Council, may sell alcohol and alcoholic beverages on the Pueblo's reservation for on-premises consumption only. In addition, the Tribal Council may authorize and license a person or entity operating on the Pueblo's reservation by lease, sublease or other appropriate document to sell alcoholic beverages for on-premises/or off-premises consumption on the terms specified in the license granted to such person or entity. Except as otherwise provided herein, the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the Pueblo's reservation and its lands shall be in conformance with the laws of the State of Texas. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a grant of jurisdiction to the State of Texas or a waiver of any of the Pueblo's sovereignty or immunity from suit.
Any and all fees, charges, or income resulting from the sale of alcoholic beverages by the Pueblo shall be due and payable to the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo rather than the State of Texas. Any and all fees, charges and taxes payable by a third party licensee of the Pueblo may be paid either to the Pueblo or State of Texas as the applicable fee, charge, or tax provides.
The Pueblo shall be solely responsible for the enforcement and administration of this Ordinance. The Tigua Tobacco and Alcohol Commission shall issue and enforce such regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Article.
There is hereby created the Tigua Tobacco and Alcohol Commission comprised of a Commissioner and two (2) members. The Commissioner and the members of the Commission shall be tribal members. No person shall be appointed to the Tigua Tobacco and Alcohol Commission unless the Tribal Council is satisfied that he or she has no ownership interest in any company or enterprise which contracts with the Pueblo or its licensee for the sale of alcohol or tobacco, or any activity which may have interests in conflict with the Pueblo's sale of alcohol or tobacco.
The Commissioner and the members of the Commission shall serve at the pleasure of the Tribal Council and may be removed at any time by majority vote of the Tribal Council.
The Commissioner and members, and any employees of the Commission, shall be reasonably compensated, as determined by the Tribal Council.
No individual, entity, or organization shall be permitted to sell or dispense alcoholic beverages from or on the Pueblo's reservation or its lands other than the Pueblo acting by and through the Tribal Council, or an individual, entity or organization licensed by the Tribal Council to sell or dispense alcoholic beverages from or on the Pueblo's reservation or its lands.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Liquor Control. The liquor control code is to regulate and control the possession, sale, manufacture and distribution of alcohol in conformity with the laws of the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of generating new Tribal revenues. Enactment of the code will help provide a source of revenue to strengthen Tribal government, provide for the economic viability of Tribal enterprises and improve delivery of Tribal government services.
This Code shall become effective August 21, 2026.
Ms. Sherry Lovin, Tribal Government Services Officer, Southern Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 368, Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005, (405) 247-6673;
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. I certify that the Caddo Nation Tribal Council duly adopted by Resolution the Caddo Nation Liquor Control Code by Resolution No. 12-2025-01 on December 10, 2025.
The Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Liquor Control Code shall read as follows:
§ 1-101. Short title.
This act shall be known as the “Caddo Nation Liquor Control Code.”
§ 1-102. Authority.
This act is adopted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Pub. L. 83-277, 67 Stat. 586 (codified at 18 U.S.C. 1161), and Article V, Section 2 of the Caddo Nation Constitution and By-Laws.
§ 1-103. Purpose.
The purpose of this act is to regulate and control the manufacture, distribution, possession, and sale of alcohol, including liquor and beer products, on the Tribal lands of the Caddo Nation of Nation of Oklahoma. This enactment will enhance the ability of the Caddo Nation to control all such alcohol-related activities within the jurisdiction of the Nation and will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and delivery of governmental services and for strengthening the Nation's self-governance, economic self-sufficiency, and self-determination.
§ 1-104. Application of federal law.
Federal law prohibits the introduction, possession, and sale of liquor within the Indian country of the Nation (18 U.S.C. 1154 and other statutes), except when in conformity both with laws of the State of Oklahoma and the Nation (18 U.S.C. 1161). As such, compliance with this act shall be in addition to and not a substitute for compliance with federal and state laws.
§ 1-105. Lawful transportation through the Nation not affected. Nothing herein shall pertain to the otherwise lawful transportation of liquor and/or beer across the Nation's Indian country, as defined by federal law, by persons remaining upon public roads and highways and where such beverages are not delivered, sold or offered for sale to anyone within the Nation's Indian country.
§ 1-106. Applicability.
The introduction, manufacture, distribution, possession, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be regulated under this act only where such activity will be conducted within or upon Tribal lands.
§ 2-101. Definitions.
As used in this act, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
“Alcohol” means the product of distillation of fermented liquid, whether or not rectified or diluted with water, but does not mean ethyl or industrial alcohol, diluted or not, that has been denatured or otherwise rendered unfit for beverage purposes.
“Alcoholic beverage(s)” means, and shall include, alcohol, beer, spirits, and wine, as those terms are defined herein, and also includes every liquid or solid, patented or not, containing alcohol, beer, spirits, or wine and capable of being consumed as a beverage by human beings, but does not include low-point beer.
“Applicant” means any person who submits an application to the Commission for an alcoholic beverage license and who has not yet received such a license.
“Beer” means any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent (
“Beer outlet” means a retail sale business licensed by the Nation to sell beer within the Nation's Indian country, including all related and associated facilities under the control of an operator. Where an operator's business is carried on as part of the operation of an entertainment or recreational facility, the beer outlet shall be deemed to include the entertainment or recreational facility and its associated areas.
“Commission” means the Caddo Nation Tax Commission, as established pursuant to Tribal law, and includes the Commission's designees to perform administrative functions in accordance with this act.
“Legal age” means twenty-one (21) years of age.
“Light Wine” means any wine containing not more than fourteen percent (14%) alcohol measured by volume at sixty (60) degrees Fahrenheit.
“Liquor” means alcohol, beer, spirits, and wine, and all other fermented, spirituous, vinous or malt liquors or any other intoxicating liquid, solid, semi-solid or other substance patented or not, containing alcohol, beer, spirits or wine, in excess of three and two-tenths percent (3.2%) of alcohol, and that is intended for oral consumption.
“Liquor outlet” or “outlet” means a retail sale business licensed by the Nation to sell within the Nation's Indian country, including all related and associated facilities under the control of the operator. Moreover, where an operator's business is carried on as part of the operation of an entertainment or recreational facility, the “liquor outlet” shall be deemed to include the entertainment or recreational facility and its associated areas.
“Low-point beer” means and includes beverages containing more than one-half
“Manufacturer” means any person engaged in the manufacture of alcohol, including, but not limited to the manufacture of alcoholic beverages.
“Nation” means the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
“Oklahoma liquor license” means any license or permit issued by the State of Oklahoma, including any agency, subdivision, or county thereof, regulating any form of alcohol, including, but not limited to any form of alcoholic beverage. Any license or permit issued for the sale or distribution of “low-point beer,” as defined under Oklahoma law, shall be considered an Oklahoma liquor license under this act.
“Operator” means a person of legal age who is properly licensed by the Commission to operate a liquor outlet and/or a beer outlet.
“Person” means a natural person, a partnership, an association of persons, a corporation, a firm, a limited liability company, a sole proprietorship, a trust, a joint venture, a consortium, a commercial entity, a Caddo Nation entity, or an Indian tribe.
“Public place” means federal, Tribal, state, or county highways and roads; buildings and grounds used as schools; public dance halls and grounds; soft drink establishments; public buildings; public meeting halls, lobbies, and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theaters, gaming facilities, entertainment centers, stores, and garages and filling stations that are open to and/or generally used by the public and to which the public has a right to access; public conveyances of all kinds and character; and all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has right to access, and which are generally used by the public. For the purpose of this act, public place shall also include any privately owned business property or establishment that is designed for or may be regularly used by more persons other than the owner of the same, but shall not include the private, family residence of any person.
“Sale” or “sell” means any transfer, exchange or barter, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for a consideration and includes and means all sales made by any person, whether as principal, proprietor or as an agent, servant, or employee, association, partnership or corporation of liquor or beer products.
“Spirits” means any beverage other than beer, wine or low-point beer that contains more than one-half of one percent (
“Tribal Council” or “Council” means the elected governing body of the Nation, as established under the Nation's Constitution.
“Tribal Court” means the courts of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
“Tribal land” means and refers to the geographic area that includes all land within the Indian country jurisdiction of the Nation, as established and described by federal law, and including, but not limited to, all lands the title to which is held by the United States in trust or in restricted fee, as are now in existence or that may hereafter be added to such jurisdiction.
“Tribe” and “Tribal” refers to the Nation, or, when the context requires, to any federally recognized Indian tribe.
“Wholesaler” means and includes any person doing any such acts or carrying on any such business or businesses that would require such person to obtain a wholesaler's license or licenses hereunder.
“Wholesale price” means the established price for which liquor or beer are sold to the Nation or any operator by the manufacturer or distributor.
“Wine” means and includes any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent (
§ 3-101. Prohibition of the unlicensed sale of alcoholic beverages.
This act prohibits the introduction, manufacture, distribution, or sale of alcoholic beverages for commercial purposes, other than where conducted by a licensee in possession of a lawfully issued license in accordance with this act. Federal liquor laws are intended to remain applicable to any act or transaction that is not authorized by this act, and violators shall be subject to all penalties and provisions of any and all applicable federal, Tribal, and/or state laws.
§ 3-102. License required.
(1) Any and all sales of alcoholic beverages conducted upon Tribal lands shall be permitted only where the seller: (i) holds a current alcoholic beverage license, duly issued by the Commission; and (ii) prominently and conspicuously displays the license on the premises or location designated on the license, as required hereunder.
(2) A licensee has the right to engage only in those activities involving alcoholic beverages expressly authorized by such license issued in accordance with this act.
§ 3-103. Sales for cash.
All sales of alcoholic beverages conducted by any person or commercial enterprise upon Tribal lands shall be conducted on a cash-only basis, and no credit for said purchase and consumption of same shall be extended to any person, organization, or entity, except that this provision does not prohibit the payment of same by use of commercial credit cards acceptable to the seller (including but not limited to VISA, MasterCard, or American Express).
§ 3-104. Personal consumption.
All sales of alcoholic beverages shall be for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and or his/her/its guest(s) of legal age. The resale of any alcoholic beverage purchased within or upon Tribal lands by any person or commercial enterprise not licensed as required by this act is prohibited.
§ 3-105. Possession for personal use.
Possession of alcohol, beer, spirits or wine products for personal use by persons of legal age shall, unless otherwise prohibited by federal, Tribal, or state laws, be lawful within the Indian country jurisdiction of the Nation, so long as said alcohol, beer, spirits or wine products were obtained or purchased from an establishment duly licensed to sell said beverages or products, whether within or outside the Nation's Indian country, as defined by federal law, and consumed within a private residence or at a location or facility licensed for the public consumption of such products.
§ 3-106. On-premises consumption.
No employee or operator of a commercial or other enterprise operating pursuant to a license issued hereunder, including an enterprise owned or operated by or for the Nation,
§ 4-101. Eligibility.
Only applicants operating upon Tribal lands shall be eligible to receive a license for the sale of any alcoholic beverage under this act.
§ 4-102. Classes of licenses.
The Commission shall have the authority to issue licenses in the following classes:
(1) “Retail On-Site General License” authorizing the licensee to sell alcoholic beverages at retail to be consumed by the buyer only on the premises or at the location designated in the license. This class of license includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, hotels, gaming facilities, and other facilities where alcoholic beverages may be sold for consumption on the premises and in the rooms of hotel guests.
(2) “Retail On-Site Beer and Wine license” authorizing the licensee to sell beer and wine at retail to be consumed by the buyer only on the premises or at the location designated in the license. This class of license includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, hotels, gaming facilities, and other facilities where beer and/or wine may be sold for consumption on the premises and in the rooms of bona fide registered guests.
(3) “Retail Off-Site General License” authorizing the licensee to sell alcoholic beverage(s) at retail to be consumed by the buyer off of the premises or at a location other than the one designated in the license.
(4) “Retail Off-Site Beer and Wine License” authorizing the licensee to sell beer and wine at retail to be consumed by the buyer off of the premises or at a location other than the one designated in the license.
(5) “Manufacturers License” authorizing the applicant to manufacture alcoholic beverages in accordance with applicable laws for the purpose of wholesale to retailers on or off Tribal land, but not authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages at retail.
(6) “Temporary License” authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages on a temporary basis for premises temporarily occupied by the licensee for an event, picnic, social gathering, or similar occasion. Temporary licenses may not be renewed upon expiration. A new application must be submitted for each such license.
The Commission may establish sub-categories of the classes of licenses authorized hereunder, provided such categories remain consistent with this act and with applicable federal and state law.
§ 4-103. Application process.
(1) The Commission may cause a license to be issued to any applicant in accordance with this act as it may deem appropriate, but not contrary to the best interests of the Nation and its citizens. Any applicant who desires to be licensed to sell alcoholic beverages and who meets the eligibility requirements pursuant to this act must apply to the Commission for a license to sell or to serve alcoholic beverages. An applicant shall fully and accurately complete an application on a form provided by the Commission, shall pay such application fee as may be required by the Commission, and shall submit such application for consideration by the Commission.
(2) All application fees paid to the Commission are nonrefundable upon submission of any such application. Each application shall require the payment of a separate application fee, as established by the Commission. The Commission may waive fees for good cause, in its discretion.
§ 4-104. Licensing requirements.
(1) Any person of legal age or older may apply to the Commission, on his or her behalf or as an authorized representative of qualified entity, for a license hereunder, subject to satisfaction of the requirements for such license hereunder.
(2) A person applying for a license hereunder must make a showing and must satisfy the Commission that he/she/it:
(A) is a person of good moral character;
(B) has not been convicted of any felony or other serious crime involving moral turpitude, any laws relating to regulation of the transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages, or any gaming laws of the Nation; and
(C) has not had any permit or license to sell alcoholic beverage(s) revoked by any other jurisdiction within the previous one (1) year.
§ 4-105. Term of licenses and renewals.
(1) Each license shall be issued for a period not to exceed two (2) years from the original date of issuance and may be renewed thereafter in compliance with this act and any rules and/or regulations hereafter adopted by the Commission.
(2) Each license may be considered for renewal by the Commission upon the licensee's submission of a new application and payment of all required fees. Such renewal application shall be submitted to the Commission at least sixty (60) days and not more than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of an existing license. If a license is not renewed prior to its expiration, the licensee shall cease and desist all activity as permitted under the license, including the sale of any alcoholic beverages, until the renewal of such license is properly approved by the Commission.
§ 4-106. Application form and content.
An application for a license hereunder shall be made to the Commission and shall contain at a minimum the following information, as provided under oath:
(1) The name, address, and age of the applicant, including as applicable the names and addresses of all of the principal officers and directors, and other employees with primary management responsibility related to the sale of alcoholic beverages;
(2) The specific area, location, and/or premise(s) for which the license is applied;
(3) The hours that the applicant will sell alcoholic beverage(s) pursuant to the license;
(4) For Temporary Licenses, the dates for which the license is sought to be in effect;
(5) The class of license applied for;
(6) Whether the applicant has an Oklahoma liquor license or mixed beverage license;
(7) a copy of such license, and any other applicable license, shall be submitted to and retained by the Commission; and
(8) A statement that the applicant satisfies the qualifications for a license hereunder, and that the applicant or, as applicable, none of the applicant's officers and directors, and employees with primary management responsibility related to the sale of Alcoholic Beverage(s):
(A) has/have not been convicted of any felony or other serious crime involving moral turpitude, any laws relating to regulation of the transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages, or any gaming laws of the Nation;
(B) has/have not had any permit or license to sell alcoholic beverage(s) revoked by any governmental authority within the previous one (1) year; and
(C) has/have not violated and will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of this act.
(9) All applications for licenses hereunder shall be signed and verified under oath by the applicant or a duly
The Commission may require applicants to provide additional information consistent with this act and with applicable law.
§ 4-107. Action on the application.
The Commission shall have the authority to deny or approve the application, consistent with this act and the laws of the Nation. Upon approval of an application, the Commission shall issue a license to the applicant in a form to be approved from time to time by the Commission. The Commission shall have the authority to issue a temporary or provisional license pending completion of the foregoing approval process.
§ 4-108. Denial of license or renewal.
An application for a new license or license renewal may be denied for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) The applicant has materially misrepresented facts contained in the application; or
(2) The applicant is presently not in compliance with this act or other Tribal or federal laws; or
(3) Granting the license (or renewal thereof) would create a threat to the peace, safety, morals, health or welfare of the Nation; or
(4) The applicant has failed to demonstrate his/her/its satisfaction of the requirements for a license or has failed to complete the application properly or has failed to tender the appropriate fee; or
(5) A verdict or judgment of guilty has been entered against or a plea of nolo contendere has been entered by the applicant or any of the applicants' officers or directors or employees with primary management responsibility relating to any offense that would otherwise disqualify the applicant for a license hereunder.
§ 4-109. Temporary denial.
If the application is denied solely on the basis of the applicant's failure to demonstrate satisfaction of the requirements or to complete the application properly or to tender the appropriate fee the Commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the application, issue a written notice of temporary denial to the applicant. Such notice shall set forth the reasons for denial and shall state that the denial will become permanent if the problem(s) is not corrected within fifteen (15) days following receipt of the notice.
§ 4-110. Cure.
If an applicant is denied a license, the applicant may cure the deficiency and resubmit the application for consideration. Each re-submission will be treated as a new application for license or renewal of a license.
§ 4-111. Investigation.
Upon receipt of an application for the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a license, the Commission shall make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant and the premises for which a license is sought qualify for a license and whether the applicant has complied with the provisions of this act, and shall investigate all matters connected therewith which may affect the public health, welfare, and morals.
§ 4-112. Procedures for appealing a denial or condition of application.
Any applicant for a license or licensee who believes the denial of a license, request for renewal, or condition imposed on their license was wrongfully determined may appeal the decision of the Commission in accordance with the Commission's rules and regulations. For purposes of appeal, an applicant or licensee shall stand in the place of a “taxpayer” as that term is used in the Commission's appeal procedures. For purposes of appeal, the action being complained of shall stand in the place of the term the “tax,” where appropriate, as that term is used in the Commission's appeal procedures.
§ 4-113. Revocation of licenses.
(a) Reasons licenses may be revoked.
The Commission may initiate an action to revoke a license whenever it is brought to the attention of the Commission that a licensee:
(1) has materially misrepresented facts contained in any license application; or
(2) is no longer qualified to hold such license; or
(3) is not in compliance with Tribal or federal laws material to the issue of licensing or with other provisions of this act; or
(4) has failed to comply with any terms or conditions of a license, including failure to pay taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverage(s) or failure to pay a required fee; or
(5) has had a verdict, or judgment of guilty entered against him or her or any of its officers or directors or managers with primary responsibility over the sale of alcoholic beverage(s), or has had a plea of nolo contendere entered by one of its officers or directors, or managers with primary responsibility over the sale of alcoholic beverage(s), as to any offense that would otherwise disqualify the applicant for a license hereunder; or
(6) has failed to take reasonable steps to correct objectionable conditions constituting a nuisance on the licensed premises or any adjacent area within a reasonable time after receipt of a notice to make such corrections has been received from the Tax Administrator or the Commission; or
(7) has had a liquor license suspended or revoked by any other jurisdiction, including the State of Oklahoma.
(b) Initiation of revocation proceedings.
Revocation proceedings may be initiated either (1) by the Commission, on its own motion and through the adoption of an appropriate resolution meeting the requirements of this section, or (2) on the basis of a complaint filed by any person with the Commission. The complaint shall be in writing and signed by the complainant. A resolution or complaint shall state facts showing that there are specific grounds under this act that if proven would authorize the Commission to revoke the license(s). The Commission shall cause the matter to be set for a hearing before the Commission on a date no later than forty-five (45) days from the Commission's receipt of a complaint or adoption of the resolution. Notice of the time, date, and place of the hearing shall be given to the licensee and the public in the same manner as set forth in Section 3-7. The notice shall state that the licensee has the right to file a written response to the complaint or resolution, verified under oath and signed by the licensee, no later than ten (10) days prior to the hearing date.
(c) Hearing.
Any hearing held in a proceeding to revoke a license shall be held under such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe. At the hearing, the licensee may present evidence and arguments, as well as documentary evidence, and shall have the right to be represented by legal counsel and to cross-examine the Commission's witnesses. The Commission shall render its decision in writing within sixty (60) days after the date of the hearing.
(d) Appeals.
The decision of the Commission shall be final, except that any person so aggrieved may file an appeal to the Tribal Court clearly stating the reason for appeal within thirty (30) days after being served with the decision of the Commission. The decision of the Commission shall be reversed only for error of law or clear error in factual determinations.
(e) Delivery of license.
Upon entry of a final, nonappealable decision revoking a license, the licensee or the operator shall forthwith deliver the license to the Commission.
§ 4-114. Transferability of licenses.
Alcoholic beverage licenses shall be issued to a specific licensee for use at a single business location (or business
§ 4-115. Posting of licenses.
Every licensee shall post and keep posted its license(s) in a prominent and conspicuous place(s) on the premises or location designated in the license. Any license posted on a premises or location not designated in such license shall not be considered valid and shall constitute a separate violation of this act.
§ 5-101. Powers and duties of the commission.
The Commission shall have authority to administer and implement this act, and shall have powers necessary and appropriate in furtherance thereof, including the authority to:
(1) adopt, publish, and enforce rules and regulations consistent with this act and other applicable laws governing the sale, distribution, and possession of alcoholic beverage(s) within the Tribal lands of the Nation;
(2) employ, commission, and direct such persons as may be reasonably necessary to perform all administrative and regulatory responsibilities of the Commission hereunder, and to delegate duties to such persons in accordance with this act;
(3) process, issue, and enforce licenses relating to the sale, distribution, and possession of alcoholic beverage(s) within Tribal lands, as provided hereunder;
(4) enforce the provisions of this act, including to conduct hearings on violations of this act and to impose sanctions and penalties as permitted hereunder, and to bring such other actions as may be required to enforce the provisions of this act;
(5) prepare and deliver such reports as may be required by law or regulation;
assess and collect taxes, fees, and penalties as may be required, imposed, or allowed by law or regulation, and to keep accurate books, records, and accounts of the same; and
(6) take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction hereunder.
§ 5-102. Right of inspection.
Any business premises licensed to distribute, or sell alcohol pursuant to this act shall be open for inspection by the Commission for the purpose of ensuring the compliance or noncompliance of the licensee with all provisions of this act and any applicable Tribal law or regulation.
§ 5-103. Suppliers and wholesalers.
(a) Right of Commission to scrutinize suppliers.
The operator of any liquor outlet shall maintain for inspection by the Commission an accurate record of the identity of the suppliers and/or wholesalers who supply or are expected to supply liquor and/or beer products to such outlet. The Commission may, at its discretion, limit or prohibit the purchase of said products from a supplier or wholesaler for the following reasons: non-payment of Nation taxes, unsound or unlawful business practices, or sale of unhealthy products and supplies. A ten (10) day notice to stop purchases (a “Stop Purchase Order”) shall be given by the Commission whenever purchases from a supplier or wholesaler are to be discontinued hereunder unless there is a health or similar emergency, in which case the Stop Purchase Order may take effect immediately.
(b) Requirement of open information.
With respect to their purchase of alcoholic beverage inventory and their business relations with suppliers and wholesalers, operators shall cooperate with and assist in the free flow of information and data to the Commission relating to such sales and business arrangements. The Commission may, at its discretion, require the licensee to produce for inspection by the Commission documentation reflecting invoices, bills of lading, billings, and documentary receipts relating to purchases of liquor and similar business information. All operator business records shall be kept in accordance with this act.
(c) Maintenance of records.
The originals or accurate electronic copies of all sales slips, invoices and other memoranda covering all purchases of liquor, including beer and wine, by an operator shall be maintained on file at the retail premises of the operator for at least five (5) years after each purchase and shall be filed separately and kept apart from all other records, and as nearly as possible shall be filed in consecutive order and the records for each month maintained separately so as to render the same readily available for inspection and verification. All cancelled checks, bank statements and books of accounting, covering and involving the purchase of liquor and all memoranda, if any, showing payment of money for liquor other than by check shall be likewise preserved for inspection and verification by the Commission. The Commission may issue regulations providing for acceptable means for the storage of records required to be maintained hereunder.
§ 5-104. Prohibition on gifts and gratuities.
No person, including no alcoholic beverage wholesaler, retailer, or distributor, or any applicant or licensee, shall offer to an officer or employee of the Nation or the Commission any gratuity, compensation or other thing of value. Officers and employees of the Nation and the Commission shall not, whether individually or as a whole, accept any gratuity, compensation or other thing of value from any alcoholic beverage wholesaler, retailer, or distributor, or from any applicant or licensee.
§ 6-101. Manufacture, sale, or distribution without license.
Any person who manufactures, distributes, sells, or offers for sale or distribution, any alcoholic beverage in violation of this act, or who operates any commercial business on Tribal lands that possesses or offers alcoholic beverages for sale without a license duly issued and properly posted, as required hereunder, shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-102. Unlawful purchase.
Any person who purchases any alcoholic beverage on Tribal lands from a person or commercial business that does not have a license to manufacture, distribute, or sell alcoholic beverages properly posted shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-103. Intent to sell.
Any person who keeps, or possesses, or causes another to keep or possess, upon his person or any premises within his control, any alcoholic beverage, with the intent to sell or to distribute the same contrary to the provisions of this act, shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-104. Sale to intoxicated person.
Any person who knowingly sells or serves an alcoholic beverage to a person who is visibly intoxicated shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-105. Age for consumption; violations.
(1) No person under the legal age shall possess or consume alcoholic beverage(s) on Tribal lands, unless otherwise permitted by applicable law.
(2) No licensee shall serve or sell an alcoholic beverage(s) to a person under the legal age or permit any such person to consume alcohol on the premises or on any premises under the licensee's control. Any licensee violating this section shall be guilty of a separate violation of this act for each and every
§ 6-106. False identification.
Any person who purchases or who attempts to purchase an alcoholic beverage through the use of false, or altered identification that falsely purports to show the person to be of the legal age or older shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-107. Documentation of age.
Upon request by an operator or other seller of alcoholic beverages, any person shall be required to present satisfactory documentation of the bearer's identity and age. For purposes of this act, satisfactory documentation may include one or more of the following:
(1) a valid motor vehicle operator's license or a personal identification card issued by any state department of motor vehicles or any Tribal government or federal government agency; or
(2) United States active duty military credentials; or
(3) passport or other official governmental document conclusively establishing a person's identity.
Any seller, server, or person attempting to purchase an alcoholic beverage, who does not comply with the requirements of this section shall be in violation of this act.
§ 6-108. Conduct on licensed premises.
No person who is a licensee shall be disorderly, boisterous, or intoxicated on the licensed premises or any public premises adjacent thereto which are under the operator's control, nor shall an operator permit disorderly, boisterous or intoxicated persons to remain thereon.
§ 7-101. In general.
(1) Any person or licensee determined by the Commission to be in violation of this act, including any lawful regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for each such violation, except as provided herein. The Commission may adopt by resolution a separate written schedule for fines for each type of violation, taking into account the seriousness and threat the violation may pose to the general public health and welfare, as well as fundamental fairness. Such schedule may also provide, in the case of repeated violations, for imposition of monetary penalties greater than the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000.00) per violation limitation set forth above. The civil penalties provided for herein shall be in addition to any criminal penalties that may be imposed under any other Tribal, federal, or state laws.
(2) Any person or licensee determined by the Commission to be in violation of this act, including any lawful regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, may be subject to ejection or exclusion from any Tribal facility or other establishment.
§ 7-102. Injunctions to prevent violations.
Any violation of this act shall constitute a public nuisance. The Commission may initiate and maintain an action in Tribal Court or any court of competent jurisdiction to abate and permanently enjoin any nuisance declared under this act. Any action taken under this section shall be in addition to any other civil penalties provided for in this act. The Commission shall not be required to post any form of bond in such action.
§ 7-103. Contraband; seizure; forfeiture.
(1) All alcoholic beverages held, owned, or possessed within Tribal lands by any person, licensee, or commercial business operating in violation of this act are hereby declared to be contraband and subject to seizure and forfeiture to the Nation.
(2) Seizure of contraband as defined in this act shall be carried out by the Commission with the assistance of law enforcement, upon request, and all such contraband seized shall be inventoried and maintained by the Commission pending a final order of the Commission. The owner of the contraband seized may alternatively request that the contraband seized be sold and the proceeds received therefrom be maintained by law enforcement pending a final order of the Commission. The proceeds from such a sale are subject to forfeiture in lieu of the seized contraband.
(3) Within ten (10) days following the seizure of such contraband, a hearing shall be held by the Commission, at which time the operator or owner of the contraband shall be given an opportunity to present evidence in defense of his or her or its activities relating to the violation of this act alleged by the Commission.
(4) Notice of the hearing of at least ten (10) days shall be given to the person from whom the property was seized and the owner, if known. If the owner is unknown, notice of the hearing shall be posted at the place where the contraband was seized and at other public places on Tribal lands and required by Commission rules. The notice shall describe the property seized, and the time, place, and cause of seizure, and list the name and place of residence, if known, of the person from whom the property was seized. If upon the hearing, the evidence warrants, or, if no person appears as a claimant, the Commission shall thereupon enter a judgment of forfeiture, and all such contraband shall become the property of the Nation. If upon the hearing the evidence does not warrant forfeiture, the seized property shall be immediately returned to the owner.
(5) The decision of the Commission shall be final, except that the owner of the seized property may file an appeal to the Tribal Court clearly stating the reason for appeal within thirty (30) days after being served with the decision of the Commission. The decision of the Commission shall be reversed only for error of law or clear error in factual determinations.
§ 8-101. Nuisance.
Any room, house, building, vehicle, structure, premises, or other location where alcoholic beverages are sold, manufactured, distributed, bartered, exchanged, given away, furnished, or otherwise possessed or disposed of in violation of this act, or of any other Tribal, federal, or state laws related to the transportation, possession, distribution or sale of alcoholic beverages, and including all property kept therein, or thereon, and used in, or in connection with such violation is hereby declared to be a nuisance upon any second or subsequent violation of the same.
§ 8-102. Action to abate nuisance.
Upon a determination by the Commission that any place or activity is a nuisance under any provision of this act, the Nation or the Commission may bring a civil action in the Tribal Court or any other court with jurisdiction to abate and to perpetually enjoin any such activity declared to be a nuisance. Such injunctive relief may include a closure of any business or other use of the property for up to one (1) year from the date of the such injunctive relief, or until the owner, lessee, or tenant shall: (i) give bond of no less than Twenty-Five Thousand dollars ($25,000) to be held by the Commission subject to the condition that any further violation of this act or other Tribal laws will result in the forfeiture of such bond; and (ii) payment of all fines, costs and assessments against him/her/it. If any condition of the bond is violated, the bond shall be forfeited and the proceeds recoverable by the Commission through an order of the Tribal Court. Any action taken under this section shall be in addition to any other civil penalties provided for in this act.
§ 9-101. Taxes imposed on sales and distribution of liquor and beer.
(a) General taxation authority.
The Commission shall have the authority to assess and collect tax on the sale of all liquor and/or beer products to the purchaser or consumer within the jurisdiction of the Nation. The Tribal Council shall determine the rates of such taxes for any class of products, which shall be paid upon or prior to the time of retail sale and delivery thereof, as set forth under the Commission's regulations or other Tribal law.
(b) Excise tax added to retail price.
An excise tax set by the Tribal Council on the wholesale price shall be added to the retail selling price of liquor and/or beer products to be sold to the ultimate consumer or purchaser. All taxes paid pursuant to this section shall be presumed to be direct taxes on the retail consumer pre-collected for the purpose of convenience and facility.
(c) Tax stamps.
Within the time period established by the Commission after receipt of any liquor and/or beer products by any wholesaler or retailer subject to this act, a Caddo Nation tax stamp shall be securely affixed thereto denoting the Nation's tax thereon. Retailers or sellers of liquor and/or beer products within the Nation's jurisdiction may buy and sell or have in their possession only liquor and/or beer products which have the Nation's tax stamp affixed to each package.
(d) Use of tax revenue.
Unless otherwise established by the Nation, all fees, taxes, payments, fines, costs, assessments, and any other revenues collected by the Commission under this act, from whatever sources, shall be expended first for the administrative and regulatory costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of the act. Any excess funds shall be paid to the general fund of the Nation for appropriation by the Tribal Council for governmental and social services.
(e) Payment of taxes.
Taxes imposed on liquor and/or beer products, together with reports on forms to be supplied by the Commission, shall be remitted to the Commission on a monthly basis, unless otherwise specified in regulations of the Commission. An operator may be required to furnish a satisfactory bond to the Commission in an amount to be specified by the Commission guaranteeing his or her or its payment of taxes.
§ 9-102. Required evidence of tax compliance.
As a condition precedent to the conduct of any operations pursuant to a license issued by the Commission, the licensee must obtain from the Commission such licenses, permits, tax stamps, tags, receipts or other documents or things evidencing receipt of any license or payment of any tax or fee administered by the Commission or otherwise showing compliance with the tax laws of the Nation.
§ 9-103. Audits and inspections.
All of the books and other business records of a licensee shall be available for inspection and audit by the Commission or its authorized representative during normal business hours and at all other reasonable times, as may be requested by the Commission.
§ 9-104. Reports.
The Commission shall submit to the Tribal Council a quarterly report and accounting of all fees, taxes, payments, fines, costs, assessments, and all other revenues collected and expended pursuant to this act.
§ 10-101. Sovereign immunity.
Nothing in this act shall be construed as a waiver or a limitation of the sovereign immunity of the Nation or its agencies, including but not limited to the Nation's Tax Commission, nor their officers or employees. The Nation expressly retains its sovereign immunity for the purposes of this act.
§ 10-102. Jurisdiction.
Any person who applies for and/or accepts a license hereunder shall, by operation of law, consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma for all matters arising under this act.
§ 10-103. Dram shop actions.
The Tribal courts of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dram shop action against an operator hereunder.
§ 11-101. Liability of operators.
Operators shall hold the Nation harmless from all claims and liability of whatever nature arising from their operations conducted pursuant to licenses issued hereunder. The Commission may revoke an operator's outlet license(s) if an outlet is not operated in accordance with sound business practices or if it does not remain financially solvent or does not pay its operating expenses and bills before they become delinquent. The Nation and the Commission shall have no legal responsibility for any unpaid bills owed by a liquor outlet to a wholesaler, supplier or any other person.
§ 11-102. Insurance.
Each operator shall maintain at his or her or its own expense adequate insurance covering liability, fire, theft, vandalism, and other insurable risks arising from the licensed business. The Commission may establish as a condition of any license, the minimum insurance coverage levels and any additional coverage deemed advisable, proof of which shall be filed with the Commission.
§ 11-103. Computation of Time.
Unless otherwise provided herein, in computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this act the day of the action, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term “legal holiday” shall mean all legal holidays under Tribal or federal law. All documents mailed shall be deemed served at the time of mailing.
§ 11-104. Construction of act.
The provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to achieve the purposes set forth, whether clearly stated or apparent from the context of the language used herein. Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or impair in any way the rights or sovereign powers of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
§ 11-105. Severability.
In the event that any provision or provisions of this act are determined by the Tribal Courts or any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions of the act shall be deemed severable from the provision or provisions determined to be invalid and shall remain in full force and effect as though the invalid provisions had never been part of the act.
§ 11-106. Effective Date.
This act shall be effective upon certification by the Secretary of the Interior and publication in the
§ 11-107. Prior Law Repealed.
Any and all prior enactments of the Nation that are inconsistent with the provisions of this act, including any prior alcoholic beverage control ordinances, are hereby repealed and rescinded.
§ 11-108. Amendment.
This act may be amended only by written resolution approved by the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service is giving notice to the public that First Class Miners Inc. has filed a proposed plan to use personal vehicles on two roads within Joshua Tree National Park to reach mining claims located outside the park.
The proposed plan is available for inspection via email request to
Superintendent, Jane Rodgers, Joshua Tree National Park, phone 760-367-5500, email
As mandated by the Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 (54 U.S.C. 100731
First Class Miners Inc. (FCM) owns placer mining claims outside Joshua Tree National Park. FCM seeks access via existing unimproved dirt roads through the park to its claims. FCM has submitted a proposed plan of operations for this access in accordance with the regulations at 36 CFR part 9A.
Under 36 CFR 9.17(a), the NPS is required to publish a notice in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Chico has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after September 21, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Michelle Hansen, California State University, Chico, 400 W 1st Street, Chico, CA 95929, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Chico, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The sole documentation associated with the human remains is an osteology report that reads “Los Molinos-3”.
The University is unaware of the human remains listed above being treated with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that may pose a hazard to the remains or to those handling them.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
California State University, Chico has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of at least two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 21, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Chico must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Chico is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Comments must be received by BOEM no later than October 20, 2026.
Send your comments on this ICR by either of the following methods listed below:
• Visit
• Email
Karen Thundiyil by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BOEM provides the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps BOEM assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand BOEM's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
BOEM is soliciting comments on the proposed ICR described below. BOEM is especially interested in public comments addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of BOEM; (2) what can BOEM do to ensure that this information is processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the burden estimate accurate; (4) how might BOEM enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might BOEM minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including minimizing the burden through the use of information technology?
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. BOEM will include or summarize each comment in its ICR to OMB for approval of this information collection. You should be aware that your entire comment—including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information included in your comment—may be made publicly available at any time. Even if BOEM withholds your personally identifiable information in the context of this ICR, your comment is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). Your information will only be withheld if a determination is made that one of the FOIA exemptions to disclosure applies. Such a determination will be made in accordance with the Department of the Interior's (DOI) FOIA implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and applicable law.
In order for BOEM to consider withholding from disclosure your personally identifiable information, you must identify, in a cover letter, any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequences of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. Note that BOEM will make available for public inspection, in their entirety, all comments submitted by organizations and businesses, or by individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses.
BOEM protects proprietary information in accordance with FOIA, DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and 30 CFR 580.70, promulgated pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCS Lands Act) (43 U.S.C. 1352(c)).
The burden hours associated with collecting this information are already covered under OMB Control Number 1010-0006. However, because that control number is currently associated with a rulemaking under OMB review, BOEM is requesting a separate control number for this form to ensure it receives OMB review and approval.
BOEM seeks to streamline its process for collecting information required under 30 CFR 556, Subpart D. Entities wishing to bid on, own, hold, or operate a lease or grant on the OCS must first obtain a qualification number from BOEM by submitting the evidence required under 30 CFR 556.402. Historically, BOEM has not provided a single standardized format for entities seeking qualification to bid on, own, hold, or operate an OCS lease or grant. Applicants were required to prepare and submit multiple certificates and resolutions to demonstrate eligibility under 30 CFR 556. The new form consolidates all required information into one submission, reducing administrative effort for applicants and enabling more efficient processing of qualification requests.
The collection of information required by this form does not add any new burden hours. All relevant hours are already included under OMB Control Number 1010-0006, which covers the submission of evidence needed for an applicant to qualify to bid on, own, hold, or operate a lease or grant on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
This ICR requests OMB approval for a new BOEM form under a new OMB control number to collect the required information in a single, standardized format, eliminating the need for applicants to prepare, execute, and submit multiple separate certificates and resolutions. This streamlined approach will simplify and expedite the process for applicants seeking to qualify to conduct business on the OCS.
In accordance with 30 CFR 556.401 and 556.402, the form collects only the information required by regulation to establish eligibility for an OCS lease or grant and to obtain a qualification number. Applicants must indicate their category—such as U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, corporations, associations, States, political subdivisions, or trusts.
The form also collects information required by 556.402, which specifies that certain categories, like businesses, must provide extra documentation, including evidence of operating rules and a list of individuals authorized to bind the entity. By collecting all the information and evidence required in 556.401 and 556.402, the form ensures all regulatory requirements are met for each applicant type.
The submitted statements and supporting evidence are used to determine eligibility and inform BOEM's qualification decisions.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This exemption permits the Plan's prior acquisition, holding, and sale of certain stock rights (the Rights) to purchase shares of stock in Liberty Latin America Ltd. (LLA). Absent an exemption, these transactions would be prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
Anna Vaughan, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
Based on the entire record attributable to D-12062, including the representations made by the Applicant, the Department has determined to grant the Proposed Exemption. This exemption provides only the relief specified herein and does not provide relief from violations of any law other than the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA or the Code. If any material statement in the record attributable to this exemption is not, or may no longer be, completely and factually accurate, the Applicant must immediately alert the Department.
The complete application file (D-12062) is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 reachable by telephone at 1-866-444-3272. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, please refer to the Proposed Exemption.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility
(2) As required by ERISA section 408(a), the Department hereby finds that the exemption is (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interests of affected plans and of their participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of such plans;
(3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
The following exemption is being granted under the authority of ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 4975(c)(2) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures regulation.
Effective September 10, 2020, through September 16, 2020, the restrictions of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(E), 406(a)(2), 406(b)(1), 406(b)(2), and 407(a)(1)(A) and the sanctions resulting from the application of Code section 4975(a) and (b), by reason of Code section 4975(c)(1), shall not apply to the following transactions, provided that the conditions described in Section II are satisfied:
(a) The acquisition by the Liberty Puerto Rico 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan or the Applicant) of certain stock subscription rights (the Rights), pursuant to a stock rights offering (the Rights Offering) by Liberty Latin America Ltd. (LLA), for the purchase of shares of Series C LLA common stock (Series C LLA Stock);
(b) the holding of the Rights by the Plan during the subscription period of the Rights Offering (the Rights Offering Period); and
(c) the sale of the Rights held by Plan participants, at the direction of the 401(k) Committee of Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico LLC (the Committee), prior to the expiration of the Rights Offering Period.
(a) The Plan's acquisition of the Rights resulted solely from an independent corporate act of LLA as a corporate entity, without the exercise of any discretion on the part of the Committee;
(b) All holders of Series A LLA common stock (Series A LLA Stock) or Series C LLA Stock (individually or together, LLA Stock), including the Plan, were issued the same proportionate number of Rights based on the number of shares of LLA Stock held by each shareholder;
(c) For purposes of the Rights Offering, all holders of Series A LLA Stock or Series C LLA Stock, including the Plan, were treated in a like manner, with the exception that the Plan participants were not permitted to exercise the Rights due to the fact that new investments in LLA Stock were not permitted under the Plan;
(d) The acquisition of the Rights by the Plan was made in a manner that was consistent with provisions of the Plan for the individually directed investment of participant accounts;
(e) The Committee directed the Plan trustee, Oriental Bank and Trust (the Trustee), to sell the Rights and did not exercise any additional discretion with respect to the acquisition and holding of the Rights;
(f) The sale of the Rights was effected in a prudent manner on the open market so that the Plan participants received at least fair market value for the Rights sold;
(g) The Plan did not pay any brokerage fees, commissions, subscription fees, or other charges in connection with the acquisition and holding of the Rights. In connection with the sale of the Rights, the Plan only paid the Securities Exchange Commission fee and a commission paid to National Financial Services, LLC, a broker that is unrelated to the Trustee or its affiliates, which were charged solely against the price received by the Plan participant for whom the Trustee sold the Right. The Committee's decision to allow this fee and commission must have been prudent, consistent with their duties under ERISA section 404, and the fee and commission must have been reasonable, consistent with ERISA section 408(b)(2);
(h) The Plan did not pay any fees in connection with the Applicant's request for this exemption;
(i) The Committee prudently and loyally determined on behalf of the Plan that: (1) the Plan's acquisition, holding and sale of the Rights could proceed, and (2) the Plan's participants received at least the fair market value for the sale of the Rights;
(j) The LLA maintains for a period of six (6) years from the date of the publication of the exemption, in a manner that is convenient and accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (k)(1)-(4) below to determine whether conditions of this exemption have been met, except that (1) a prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of LLA, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (2) no party in interest other than LLA shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under ERISA section 502(i) if the records are not maintained, or are not available for examination as required by paragraph (k) below;
(k) Notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of ERISA section 504, the records referred to in paragraph (j) above shall be unconditionally available at their customary location during normal business hours to:
(1) any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service;
(2) Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico LLC (LCPR) or any duly authorized representative of LCPR;
(3) the Plan fiduciary or any duly authorized representative of the Plan fiduciary; and
(4) any participant or beneficiary of the Plan, or any duly authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary;
(l) For a period of six (6) years from the date of the publication of the exemption, the Plan must provide to the Department the records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption, as amended, have been met,
(m) All of the material facts and representations made by the Plan that are set forth in the Summary of Facts and Representations in the Proposed Exemption are true and accurate at all times. If there is any material change in a transaction covered by the exemption, or in a material fact or representation described by the Applicant in the application, the exemption will cease to apply as of the date of the change.
The exemption is in effect from September 10, 2020, the date that the Plan received the Rights, through September 16, 2020, the last date the Rights were sold on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This exemption permits the sale by the Fund of real property to the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council (the Sale). Without this exemption, the Sale would be prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Exemption date: This final exemption will be in effect as of the date of publication in the
Ms. Blessed Chuksorji-Keefe, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
On August 22, 2025, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption in the
The Department declines to hold a hearing because the Commenter did not raise any factual issues that cannot be fully explored through the submission of written evidence, nor did the Commenter provide a statement of how the person would be materially affected by the exemption or a general description of the evidence to be presented at the hearing.
The Applicant states that the “Fund” refers to the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council Apprentice and Training Fund. The Fund is a trust established pursuant to collective bargaining that is jointly trusteed by representatives of both the MACRC and employers of MACRC members. The Fund's purpose is to provide training to carpentry apprentices and trainees.
The Department notes that the Sale will not have any impact on amount of the pension benefits due MACRC members.
The Applicant responded that the Fund engaged Gallagher after a review of materials submitted by prospective qualified independent fiduciaries in
The Applicant states further that Gallagher, in its role as the independent fiduciary for the Fund, reviewed and approved of the methodology used by Newmark in determining the values of the Property and the Parcel, and that these determinations are explained in the Proposed Exemption and in Gallagher's report that was reviewed by the Department.
The Applicant states that no member of the MACRC will receive compensation in connection with the Sale. The Applicant states that the Fund, which was established exclusively to facilitate training for apprentices and trainees, is selling the Property to the MACRC in exchange for revenue to conduct the Fund's training activities. Further, the MACRC intends to maintain a Wellness Center on the Property to be used to provide more affordable and accessible healthcare services to MACRC members.
The Applicant states that relevant documentation supporting the exemption transaction was provided as part of the application file and is publicly available upon request from the Department.
The Department also notes that the “Closing Report,” which must be delivered by the independent fiduciary to the Employer Trustees of the Fund and the Department within 60 days of the closing of the Sale, must be provided by the Applicant upon request to any participant or beneficiary of the Fund, in accordance with the terms of the exemption, and that interested persons also have the right to request the public record supporting the exemption from the Department's Public Disclosure Room, in accordance with the information provided below.
The Applicant states that the Lease Agreement is a part of the application file and is publicly available. According to the Applicant, the Lease refers to the leasing arrangement required by Gallagher, the independent fiduciary, between the Fund and the MACRC regarding the Property for the payment of ground rent, beginning when the MACRC began construction of the Wellness Center on the property in October 2020. The Applicant states that if the tenant defaults on the Lease, the Fund may avail itself of any remedies available to it in the Lease Agreement and under applicable law. Further, the Applicant states that any insurance policies maintained by the Fund on the Property are not a part of the public record and are not relevant to the Sale or the Settlement. The intention of the parties is that the lease will terminate upon the closing of the transaction, when the Fund's interest in the property will be completely transferred to the MACRC.
The Applicant responded that the MACRC Trustees on the Fund's Board of Trustees recused themselves from all discussions and voting with respect to the Fund's decision to enter into the Sale, in accordance with their fiduciary duties as trustees of the Fund. The Applicant states further that whether the MACRC Trustees recused themselves from other matters described by the Commenter not involving the Sale is outside the scope of the exemption.
Based on the record and representations made by the Applicant, the Department has determined to grant the Proposed Exemption.
The Department makes the requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a) that the exemption is: (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interest of the Fund and its participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of both the Fund and the participants and beneficiaries of the Fund, based on the Applicants' adherence to all the conditions and definitions of the exemption at all times. Accordingly, affected parties should be aware that the conditions and definitions incorporated in this exemption, taken individually and as a whole, are necessary for the Department to grant the relief requested by the Applicant. This exemption provides only the relief specified herein and does not provide relief from violations of any law other than the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA.
The complete application file (L-12103) is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 reachable by telephone at (866) 444-3272. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, please refer to the Notice of Proposed Exemption.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA section 408(a) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest from certain other provisions of ERISA, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does
(2) As required by ERISA section 408(a), the Department hereby finds that the exemption is (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interests of the plan and of their participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan;
(3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in connection with the Applicant's exemption application, the Department has determined to grant the following exemption under the authority of ERISA section 408(a) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures regulation.
The restrictions of ERISA Sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(b)(1), and (b)(2), do not apply with respect to the sale of the 1.13 acre Parcel by the Fund to the MACRC, provided the following conditions are satisfied at all times:
(a) The MACRC complied with all applicable obligations under the “Settlement and Agreement to Pay ERISA Section 502(i) Amount Involved and Penalty Amount” entered into between the MACRC and the Department, effective January 31, 2024 (the Settlement); and the MACRC paid all back rent, penalties, and interest due to the Fund under the terms of the Lease Agreement dated January 31, 2024 between the MACRC and the Fund (the Lease) for the period of time that the MACRC improperly accessed the Parcel and commenced construction of the building on the Parcel, from November 15, 2020 through January 31, 2024, the date of the Settlement Agreement.
(b) The MACRC complies with all terms of the Lease, and any violation of or failure to comply with any term of the Lease is corrected as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery.
(c) The Sale is a one-time transaction for cash that must close within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the final exemption.
(d) At the time of the Sale, the Fund receives the greater of (1) $220,000; or (2) the fair market value of the Parcel as established by an independent appraiser in an updated appraisal of such Parcel on the date of the Sale. The independent appraiser must meet the Department's definition of a “qualified independent appraiser” under the Department's Exemption Procedure in 29 CFR 2570.31(i) and, at all times: the qualified independent appraiser must not have entered into, and must not enter into, any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the qualified independent appraiser by the Fund, the MACRC, or any other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the qualified independent appraiser's work; or that waives any rights, claims or remedies of the Fund or its participants and beneficiaries under ERISA or other Federal and state laws against the qualified independent appraiser with respect to the Sale.
(e) The Fund pays no fees, commissions, or other expenses associated with the Sale.
(f) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to the Fund as those obtainable in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated third party.
(g) The trustees appointed by the MACRC (the MACRC Trustees) recused themselves, and continue to recuse themselves, from any involvement in the decision-making process with respect to the Fund's decision to enter into the Sale, since September 23, 2020.
(h) Gallagher Advisory Services, LLC (Gallagher), or another “qualified independent fiduciary” as defined under 29 CFR 2570.31(j) (the Independent Fiduciary) is retained to act as the Independent Fiduciary on behalf of the Fund for all purposes in connection with the Sale and the Lease, and at all times: the Independent Fiduciary must not have entered into, and must not enter into, any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of such Independent Fiduciary by the Fund, the MACRC, or other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the Independent Fiduciary's work; or that waives any rights, claims, or remedies of the Fund under ERISA, state, or Federal law against the Independent Fiduciary with respect to the Sale.
(i) The Independent Fiduciary must represent the Fund and its participants and beneficiaries for all purposes in connection with the Sale and the Lease in accordance with its fiduciary duties under ERISA section 404, including taking the following actions:
(1) review relevant materials to evaluate the Sale and determine whether it is in the best interest of the Fund to proceed with the Sale;
(2) determine whether to rely upon the appraisal report used to determine the fair market value of the Parcel for all purposes in connection with the Sale, and review and approve the methodology used in such appraisal in order to determine that the appropriate methodology is applied by the independent appraiser in determining the fair market value of the Parcel on the date of the Sale;
(3) review, negotiate, and modify (as needed) the Sale agreement and related documents;
(4) prepare a report in connection with the application of the exemption request describing the Independent Fiduciary's review and determinations with respect to the Sale, including whether the Sale is in the best interest of the Fund and its participants and beneficiaries;
(5) make a final determination on behalf of the Fund whether to approve the Sale;
(6) ensure that the Fund receives the fair market value of the Parcel as agreed upon under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement; and that the remaining terms of the purchase and sale agreement and any related instruments are complied with; and
(7) ensure that the MACRC has complied with and continues to comply with all applicable terms of the Lease, including that the Fund receives all rent due to it under the terms of the Lease.
(j) The Independent Fiduciary must prepare an “After Closing Report” for the Employer Trustees of the Fund and the Department, which must be delivered to both parties within 60 days
(k) The Fund's Trustees and the Independent Fiduciary maintain for a period of six (6) years from the date of any transaction related to the Sale, in a manner that is convenient and accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (l)(1) below to determine whether conditions of this exemption, if granted, have been met, except that (i) a prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Fund's trustees and/or the Independent Fiduciary, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and (ii) no party in interest other than the Fund's trustees or the Independent Fiduciary shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under ERISA section 502(i) if the records are not maintained, or are not available for examination.
(l)(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of sections (a)(2) and (b) of ERISA Section 504, the records referred to in paragraph (k) above shall be unconditionally available at their customary location during normal business hours to: (i) any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service; (ii) the Fund's trustees or any duly authorized representative of the Fund's trustees; (iii) the Independent Fiduciary or any duly authorized representative of the Independent Fiduciary; (iv) any participant or beneficiary of the Fund, or any duly authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary; and (2) should the MACRC or any party refuse to disclose information to a person on the basis that such information is exempt from disclosure, such party shall provide a written notice advising that person of the reasons for the refusal and that the Department may request such information by the close of the thirtieth (30th) day following the request.
(m) All the material facts and representations made by the Applicant that are set forth in the Proposed Exemption's Summary of Facts and Representations are true and accurate at all times. If there is any material change in a transaction covered by the exemption, or in a material fact or representation described by the Applicant in the application, the exemption will cease to apply as of the date of the change.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This exemption permits the Hawai'i Pacific Health Retirement Plan (the Plan) to sell property (the Property) to Straub Clinic & Hospital (Straub) for the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised Value of the Property as of the date of the sale (the Sale). Absent this exemption, the Sale would violate certain prohibited transaction restrictions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and/or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
This final exemption is effective August 21, 2026.
Nicholas Schroth, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-8540 (this is not a toll-free number).
Hawai'i Pacific Health (the Applicant) requested an exemption pursuant to ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 4975(c)(2) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B.
On November 26, 2025, the Department proposed an exemption that would permit the Sale, subject to certain conditions (the Proposed Exemption),
The 2024 Appraisal shows that the negotiated purchase price for the Property ($16,247,000) would likely be greater than the estimated value to the Plan due to its continued ownership of the Property ($14,770,000). Thus, the Sale would provide the estimated highest value to the Plan between the two options. The conditions of this exemption further protect the Plan by requiring the purchase price formula for the Sale to be the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised Value (
Following publication of the proposed exemption, Hawai'i Pacific Health repaid (on behalf of Straub) the Property Expenses owed to the Plan, plus interest, for years 2006 to 2014. Section III(b)(7) of this exemption requires the QIF to confirm in writing to the Department that the amount repaid at least equaled the amount owed the Plan for years 2006 to 2014.
Department's Response to the Hearing Request. As noted in the Proposed Exemption, the Department's procedural regulations provide for a hearing when “necessary to fully explore material factual issues identified by the person requesting the hearing.”
The Department notes that in processing the Applicant's exemption request, it thoroughly reviewed the application, all materials submitted in support of the application, and all comments received during the comment period. A complete copy of the record supporting this exemption is available in the Department's Public Disclosure Room by referencing Application No. D-12082.
This final exemption also includes minor, non-substantive edits intended to correct scrivener's errors or make non-substantive clarifications.
Based on the entire record, including the comments discussed above, the Department has determined to grant the proposed exemption. In this regard, the Department makes the requisite findings under ERISA section 408(a), based on the Applicants' adherence to all the conditions and definitions of the exemption at all times. Accordingly, affected parties should be aware that the conditions and definitions incorporated in this exemption are, taken individually and as a whole, necessary for the Department to grant the relief requested by the Applicant. In granting this exemption, the Department has relied on the representations of the Applicant. If any material statement in the Application, supporting documents (including the Applicant's comment), Proposed Exemption or final exemption is not, or may no longer be, completely and factually accurate, the Applicant and recipients of the exemptive relief provided herein must immediately alert the Department.
The complete application file (D-12082) will remain available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210 reachable by telephone at (202) 693-8673. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, please refer to the Proposed Exemption.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA section 408(a) and/or Code section 4975(c)(2) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person from certain other provisions of ERISA and/or the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA section 404, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge their duties respecting the plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and in a prudent fashion in accordance with ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B); nor does it affect the requirement of Code section 401(a) that the Plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the Plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) As required by ERISA section 408(a), the Department hereby finds that the exemption is (1) administratively feasible for the Department, (2) in the interests of affected plans and of their participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of such Plans;
(3) The exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction; and
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions that are the subject of the exemption and are true at all times.
Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in connection with the Applicant's exemption application, the Department has determined to grant the following exemption under the authority of ERISA section 408(a) and Code section 4975(c)(2) in accordance with the Department's exemption procedures regulation.
(a) “Appraised Value” means the greater of the Property's fair market value or its Investment Value, as determined by the QIA.
(b) “Investment Value” means the value of a property to a particular investor or class of investors based on the investor's specific requirements. In the instant case, Lesher, the Qualified Independent Appraiser, considered the potential benefit to Straub for purchasing the Property taking into account the fact that Straub owned an abutting parcel of real estate.
(c) “Plan” means the Hawai'i Pacific Health Retirement Plan, a defined benefit plan that provides retirement benefits to Hawai'i Pacific Health employees and the employees of Straub Clinic & Hospital. Hawai'i Pacific Health appointed the Hawai'i Pacific Health Retirement Plan Finance Committee (the Committee) to serve as the Plan's named fiduciary and plan administrator.
(d) The “Property” means the parcel of real property owned by the Plan and located at 888 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.
(e) “Property Expenses” mean the expenses and costs relating to the Property that Straub was responsible to pay pursuant to several provisions in the lease between Straub and the Plan, dated January 2, 1969. These costs and expenses include taxes, utilities, and maintenance.
(f) “Purchase Price” means the price paid by Straub to the Plan for the Property, which must be the greater of $16,247,000 or 110% of the Appraised Value as determined by the QIA on the date of Sale. This amount may be further negotiated upwards by the QIF if necessary to determine that the Sale is in the best interest of the Plan.
(g) “Qualified Appraisal Report” means the report appraising the Property as of the Sale date that comports with the requirements of 29 CFR 2570.31(h).
(h) “QIA” means Lesher Chee Stadlbauer (Lesher), or such other “Qualified Independent Appraiser,” as defined in 29 CFR 2570.31(i), hired by the QIF to determine the Property's Appraised Value as of the date of the Sale. If the QIF replaces Lesher with a new entity to act as the QIA in connection with the Sale, the new entity must be approved in writing by the Department, and the Department must receive a copy of the new appraiser's appraisal report for the Property at least 60 days in advance of the Sale.
(i) “QIF” means Central Pacific Bank (CPB), or such other “Qualified Independent Fiduciary,” as defined in 29 CFR 2570.31(j), hired by the Plan to monitor, review, negotiate, and exercise the sole authority to approve the Sale of the Property in accordance with the requirements of ERISA section 404(a) and 404(b), and this exemption, if granted. If the Plan replaces CPB with a new entity to serve as the QIF in connection with the Sale, the new entity must be approved in writing by the Department at least 90 days in advance of the Sale.
(j) “Straub” means Straub Clinic & Hospital, a wholly controlled subsidiary of Hawai'i Pacific Health, the employees of which are participants in the Plan.
This exemption provides relief from the prohibited transactions provisions of ERISA sections 406(a)(1)(A), 406(a)(1)(D), 406(b)(1), and 406(b)(2), and Code sections 4975(c)(1)(A), (D), and (E) for Hawai'i Pacific Health and the Committee in connection with the sale of the Property by the Plan to Straub in exchange for a lump sum payment of cash equal to the Purchase Price (the Sale). To receive this relief, the conditions in Section III must be met in conformance with the definitions in Section I.
(a) The Sale must be a lump sum payment in cash equal to the Purchase Price, and the Sale must take place within 60 days of the date of publication of the exemption in the
(b) The QIF must have the sole authority to approve the Sale and take any other fiduciary action on behalf of the Plan with respect to the Sale; and the QIF must take the following actions in accordance with its fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA Section 404(a) and (b):
(1) Determine whether it is prudent to go forward with the Sale and make a final determination on the record whether or not to proceed with the Sale;
(2) Approve the terms and conditions of the Sale;
(3) Retain the services of a QIA, review the Qualified Appraisal Report, approve the methodology used by the QIA, and ensure that such methodology is properly applied in determining the Property's fair market value and Investment Value on the date of the Sale;
(4) Negotiate a higher price than the current Purchase Price, if necessary, in order to determine that the Sale is in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(5) Monitor the Sale throughout its duration on behalf of the Plan to ensure the parties' compliance with the terms of applicable sale agreements and related documents and enforce the rights of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries in connection with such agreements;
(6) Monitor compliance with the conditions for this exemption and take any appropriate actions to safeguard the interests of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries;
(7) Review and approve in writing, prior to approving the Sale, that the amounts of Property Expenses erroneously paid by the Plan from 2006 through 2014, with associated lost interest as calculated using the Department's VFCP Calculator, have been repaid on behalf of Straub to the Plan to make the Plan whole, using the Department's applicable correction procedures;
(8) Create and deliver to the Department a report (i) justifying its conclusion that the Sale is, or is not, in the best interest of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and was conducted in accordance with the terms of this exemption, (ii) confirming that the calculation and repayment of the Property Expenses described in the preamble to the notice of proposed exemption
(c) The Plan does not pay any costs associated with the Sale, including brokerage commissions, fees, appraisal costs, or any other expenses.
(d) The terms and conditions of the Sale are at least as favorable to the Plan as those it would have obtained in an arm's length transaction with an unrelated party.
(e) The QIF must not have entered into, and must not enter into, any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the QIF by the Plan or other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the QIF's work; and the QIF may not seek or receive any waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies of the Plan under ERISA, state, or Federal law against the QIF with respect to the subject matter of the exemption;
(f) The QIA must not have entered into, and must not enter into, any agreement, arrangement, or understanding that includes any provision that provides for the direct or indirect indemnification or reimbursement of the QIA by the Plan or any other party for any failure to adhere to its contractual obligations or to state or Federal laws applicable to the QIA's work; and the QIA may not seek or obtain any waiver of any rights, claims or remedies of the Plan or its participants and beneficiaries under ERISA, the Code, or other Federal and state laws against the QIA with respect to the subject matter of the exemption;
(g) Prior to the Sale, Hawai'i Pacific Health (on behalf of Straub) must pay back to the Plan the Property Expenses the Plan erroneously paid from 2006 through 2014, including lost interest, in violation of the Lease and PTE 81-71.
(h) Straub and Hawai'i Pacific Health maintains for a period of six (6) years from the date of Sale, in a manner that is convenient and accessible for audit and examination, the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (i)(1) below to determine whether conditions of this exemption have been met, except that (i) a prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred merely
(i)(1) Except as provided in Section (2) of this paragraph and notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b) of ERISA section 504, the records referred to in paragraph (h) above shall be unconditionally available at their customary location during normal business hours to:
(i) any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department or the Internal Revenue Service;
(ii) Straub, Hawai'i Pacific Health or any duly authorized representative of Straub or Hawai'i Pacific Health;
(iii) the QIF or any duly authorized representative of the QIF;
(iv) any participant or beneficiary of the Plan, or any duly authorized representative of such participant or beneficiary;
(j) Straub, Hawai'i Pacific Health and/or QIF must provide to the Department the records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of the exemption have been met, within 30 days from the date the Department requests such records; and
(k) All the material facts and representations made by the Applicant that are set forth in the proposed exemption and this grant notice must be true and accurate at all times.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA grants a permanent variance to NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NOC or the applicants) from a provision of the OSHA standard that regulates commercial diving operations.
The permanent variance specified by this notice becomes effective on August 21, 2026 and shall remain in effect until it is modified or revoked, whichever occurs first.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA's standards in subpart T of 29 CFR 1910 govern commercial diving operations. On April 6, 2022, the eight companies comprising NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract, Vertex TTS, Oceaneering International Inc., Bastion Technologies, Inc., Rothe Enterprises, Rothe Development, International Preparedness Associates, Inc., MRI, and EPro (collectively NOC or the applicants), submitted an application for a permanent variance under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (Variances and other relief under section 6(d)), from a provision of OSHA's commercial diving operations (CDO) standard that regulates the use of decompression chambers (Docket No. OSHA-2023-0009-0001). NOC's application also requested an interim order pending OSHA's decision on the variance application. NOC is located at 13000 Space Center Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77059.
This notice addresses NOC's application for a permanent variance and interim order from the provision of OSHA's CDO standard at 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) that requires the employer to instruct divers engaged in commercial diving operations to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) for any dive outside the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 feet of sea water (fsw), or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture.
OSHA reviewed NOC's application for the variance and interim order based on the alternate standard OSHA granted NASA on June 30, 2021, and determined that NOC were appropriately submitted in compliance with the applicable variance procedures in Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(d)) and OSHA's regulations at 29 CFR 1905.11 (Variances and other relief under section 6(d)), including the requirement that the applicant inform workers and their representatives of their rights to petition the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health for a hearing on the variance application.
OSHA additionally reviewed the alternative procedures in NOC's application, along with the alternate standard granted to NASA on June 30, 2021, and preliminarily determined that NOC's proposed alternative, subject to the conditions in the request and imposed by the interim order, provides measures that are as safe and healthful as those required by the cited OSHA standard. On November 20, 2023, OSHA published a
OSHA did not receive any comments or other information disputing the preliminary determination that the alternative was at least as safe as OSHA's standard, nor any objections to
On December 15, 2020, NASA submitted a request to OSHA proposing one alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2), Subpart T, and included with their request extensive introductory, background, and explanatory information in support of the request (OSHA-2023-0009-0003). NASA sought an alternate standard that would permit the NBL to conduct post-dive health monitoring that is tailored to NASA's specific dive operations and medical surveillance capabilities.
The alternate standard request stated that NASA operates training and simulation activities for space operations that routinely involve underwater diving operations in preparation for upcoming missions. NASA described the NBL as a large, indoor tank of water, where astronauts perform simulated extravehicular activities (EVAs), also known as spacewalks, in preparation for upcoming space missions. The NBL is a controlled environment with a maximum depth of 40 feet. Its primary purpose is to provide a large-scale underwater environment where NASA personnel can simulate a weightless environment by balancing the buoyancy of a suited subject submerged in the water. Astronaut trainees, suited in Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs) adapted for use in water, can then perform a variety of specialized activities on spacecraft and Space Station analogs in the water. The NBL uses nitrox (46% enriched air nitrox (EAN
NASA asserted in its request for the alternate standard that diving on nitrox in the NBL is safer and less likely to cause decompression sickness (DCS) than diving on compressed air due to the lower partial pressure of nitrogen in the gas mixture, giving a shallower equivalent air depth (EAD). The EAD formula can accurately estimate the depth allowing for DCS risk calculation based on equivalent nitrogen pressures and dive durations used in air diving. In other words, breathing EAN
Additionally, the alternate standard request examined the use of nitrox in the water, and the risk of oxygen toxicity, specifically the risk of seizure resulting from central nervous system (CNS) oxygen toxicity. NASA asserted in the alternate standard request that with the hard floor at 40 feet in the tank, there are no cases in medical or diving literature of seizure in water at pressures of PO
The alternate standard request asserted that the proposed alternate standard provides equivalent protection to the OSHA standard. First, NASA stated that the fixed diving depth of the pool has eliminated the risk of decompression sickness. As a result, the need to remain in the vicinity of the chamber is for the control and treatment of arterial gas embolism only. Second, NASA asserted that a shorter observation period would be sufficient: “At the NBL, a ten-minute observation provides the equivalent protection as a one-hour observation in the outside environment. Moreover, implementation of this standard will provide greater protection for divers by allowing them to dive on Nitrox rather than air routinely. This will reduce recurrent decompression stress experienced by the divers, along with the resulting long-term health problems that occur from repetitive decompression stress, such as the risk of dysbaric osteonecrosis (bone death).” Additionally: “NBL divers operate under no-decompression limits that are more conservative than the U.S. Navy. The OSHA regulations for mixed gas diving enhance safety when applied to gas mixtures used on long, deep, complex dives because of increased risk of DCS and oxygen toxicity. However, diving with nitrox at shallower depths, such as the NBL, is in fact safer than diving on air.” Further: “The NBL adheres to strict oxygen clean handling and compatibility requirements that exceed the industry standard for concentrations greater than 40% by volume. The alternate standard allows divers to breathe a safer gas during all NBL events, in addition to allowing for fewer total diving events.”
NASA's alternate standard request also explained that NASA employees working within the NBL work together to ensure the availability of qualified personnel and certified systems to meet NASA's EVA requirements. NASA stated that safety and utility divers support suited trainees at all times in the water. Suited crew utilize surface-supplied nitrox via an umbilical, and support divers breathe nitrox via self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) while working in the tank. NBL activities routinely involve dozens of trainees and divers, requiring hundreds of dive hours per week. NASA asserted in the alternate standard request that the NBL medical officer or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all divers for fitness prior to entering the water. Only the medical officer performs fitness to dive exams for suited subjects. These exams include obtaining vital signs and information on any changes to medical history, including but not limited to, medications; physical fitness; and cardiopulmonary and ear, nose, and throat examinations. Divers and suited subjects may be disqualified pending treatment or further evaluation and management if there are any concerning abnormalities. NASA also certified that it will apply and use the alternate standard only at the NBL and that NASA will not apply or use the alternate standard at any other location or during the other underwater activities that NASA performs.
After fully considering NASA's application and its responses to OSHA's follow-up questions (OSHA-2023-0009-0004), OSHA approved the alternate standard that NASA proposed for use solely at NASA's NBL (OSHA-2023-0009-0005). NOC now seeks a permanent variance covering its employees conducting commercial diving operations at the NBL based on NASA's approved alternate standard.
The information that follows about NOC comes from the NOC variance application.
NOC is a team of contractors for NASA, a federal government agency that is responsible for science and technology related to air and space. NOC is comprised of prime contractor Vertex TTS and sub-contractors Oceaneering International Inc. (Oll); Bastion Technologies, Inc.; Rothe Enterprises; Rothe Development; International Preparedness Associates, Inc. (IPA); MRI; and EPro; a group of companies working at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, within the NASA Space Center in Houston, Texas. On June 30, 2021, OSHA approved an alternate standard
NOC's divers conduct diving operations for NASA at the NBL facility in Houston, Texas. NASA requires all divers to follow all their internal requirements, including the NBL Diving Program and the NASA alternate standard, which only cover NASA employees. To permit NOC's divers to dive under the same standards as their NASA-employed colleagues, NOC seeks a permanent variance from 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) based on the same conditions that apply to NASA divers under the NASA alternate standard.
NOC contends that the proposed variance conditions outlined in the application provide NOC's workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the provisions of OSHA's CDO standard. NOC has also certified that they are not contesting any citations involving the standards that are the subject of this application. As a NASA contractor, NOC asserts that their divers must strictly follow the requirements of the NBL, which include following the conditions of the NASA alternate standard. However, the NASA alternate standard's coverage does not include NOC-employed divers, even though they work side-by-side with NASA-employed divers during NBL operations. NOC states that their divers undergo the same training as NASA NBL employees, and that there are no differences between NASA and NOC divers regarding medical clearance procedures and standards, training materials, equipment used, equipment maintenance, and diving procedures used. Accordingly, NOC seeks permission from OSHA to conduct dive activities for NASA at the NBL under the same standard regulating the time required for NASA employees diving at the NBL, on nitrox and within the no-decompression limits, pursuant to the NASA alternate standard rather than the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2).
OSHA's standards regulating the availability and use of decompression chambers require that for any dive within the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 fsw, or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture, the employer must instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber that is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) (29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2)).
In adopting the conditions of the NASA alternate standard, NOC's application proposes deviating from the decompression chamber availability and capability requirements in OSHA's CDO standard. As OSHA explained when it granted the NASA Alternate Diving Standard, the purpose of having a decompression chamber available and ready for use at a dive site is to treat DCS and arterial gas embolism (AGE). DCS may occur from breathing air or mixed gases at diving depths and durations that require decompression, while AGE may result from over-pressurizing the lungs, usually following a rapid ascent to the surface without proper exhalation. If DCS or AGE develops, a decompression chamber, oxygen or treatment gas mixtures, and treatment tables and instructions must be readily available to treat these conditions effectively. Decompression chambers provide the most effective therapy—recompression—for DCS and AGE.
NOC's proposed variance would adopt the conditions of the NASA alternate standard that permit NASA to deviate from the requirement that the employer instruct all divers who dive deeper than 100 fsw or who dive using mixed breathing gas to remain awake and in the vicinity of a decompression chamber for one hour after the dive. The NASA alternate standard allows divers at NASA's NBL who are diving on nitrox, within the no-decompression limits, to be instructed to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least 10 minutes after the dive. In other words, the NASA alternate Section 1910.423(b)(2) requires that any NASA diver at NASA's NBL who dives using nitrox within the no-decompression limits will be instructed to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber for at least ten minutes after the completion of the dive.
When approving NASA's request for an alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2),
OSHA explained in the NASA alternate standard that it created this exemption for diving guides because the agency determined that the elevated levels of oxygen in nitrox breathing-gas mixtures reduced the incidence of DCS compared to breathing air at the same depths, and therefore found that the risk of DCS was minimal.
After considering the statistics and information regarding NBL operations that NASA submitted, OSHA concluded that NASA's proposed alternate standard would provide equivalent protection to the CDO standard when NBL divers use nitrox breathing-gas mixtures. NOC's proposed variance would adopt conditions identical to those for which OSHA approved NASA's alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2).
OSHA conducted a review of NOC's variance application and the supporting technical documentation. After completing the review of the variance application, the NASA alternate standard, and related supporting materials, OSHA concludes that:
1. The proposed conditions would provide NOC's divers with protection equivalent to the CDO standard;
2. There are no differences in the training requirements, medical clearance procedures and standards, equipment use and maintenance requirements, or diving procedures that apply to NASA-employed and NOC-employed divers who dive at the NBL; and
3. Diving safety for the NBL will be maximized when the diving practices of NOC-employed divers are identical to those of NASA-employed divers.
After reviewing the proposed alternative, OSHA determined that NOC proposed to implement effective alternative means of protection that will protect its employees as effectively as the requirements of paragraph 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) of the standard governing commercial diving operations. Further, under section 6(d) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on the record discussed above, OSHA finds that when the employer complies with the conditions of the variance, the working conditions of the employer's workers are at least as safe and healthful as if the employer complied with the working conditions specified by paragraph 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) OSHA's standard for commercial diving operations. Therefore, under the terms of this variance, NOC must: (1) comply with the conditions listed below under section V of this notice (Order) for the period between the effective date of this notice and until the agency modifies or revokes this final order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13; (2) comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1910; and (3) provide a copy of this
The conditions for the variance are set out in the Order at the end of this document. This section provides additional detail regarding the conditions in the permanent variance that OSHA is granting to NOC.
The scope of the permanent variance limits coverage only to the commercial diving operations performed at NASA's NBL. Clearly defining the scope of the permanent variance provides NOC, NOC's employees, potential future applicants, other stakeholders, the public, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work situations to which the permanent variance applies. To the extent that NOC exceeds the defined scope of this variance, they must comply with OSHA's standards.
OSHA's grant of a permanent variance applies only to the applicants that comprise the NOC (Vertex TTS, Oll, Bastion Technologies Inc., Rothe Enterprises, Rothe Development, IPA, MRI, and EPro), and only to work performed at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. The permanent variance does not apply to any other employers or any other worksite. Additionally, coverage is limited to the work situations specified under the “Scope and Application” section of Subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations (1910.401(a)), and does not apply to commercial diving operations that are already exempted under 1910.401(a)(2).
Condition B defines abbreviations used in the permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their use, thereby enhancing the applicants' and their employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.
This condition requires that, for any dive within the no-decompression limits and using nitrox as a breathing mixture, NOC will instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least ten minutes after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate). When using a nitrox breathing-gas mixture, NOC must meet the no-decompression provisions of Appendix C to the CDO standard (Use of No-Decompression Limits).
This condition requires the applicants to implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication are intended to ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. This condition also requires the applicants to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during diving activities. Availability of such reliable means of communications enables affected workers and support personnel to respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions or emergencies that may develop during diving activities at NASA's NBL.
This condition requires NOC to follow the requirements of the NASA NBL Safety Program, including the NBL Safe Practices Manual, and any instruction NASA's Dive Safety Board (DSB) provides, to qualify their employees to perform diving activities at the NBL. Further, NOC must ensure that the NBL medical officer of the day or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all employees conducting dives at the NBL for fitness to dive prior to entering the water. This condition specifies actions an affected worker must be able to perform safely during diving activities, including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and qualified workers performing the required dive tasks ensures that they recognize and respond appropriately to underwater safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements enable NOC divers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing worker injury, illness, and fatalities.
Under OSHA's existing recordkeeping requirements in 29 CFR part 1904 regarding Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, NOC must maintain a record of any recordable injury, illness, or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904) resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions, or any other work conditions, by completing the OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300 Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. NOC did not seek a variance from this standard and therefore must comply fully with those requirements.
Under this condition, the applicants must, within specified periods of time: (1) notify OSHA of any recordable injury, illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or fatality that occurs as a result of diving operations within eight (8) hours of the incident; (2) provide OSHA's Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report) of the event; (3) include on OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented; (4) provide the certification that affected workers were informed of the incident and the results of the incident investigation; (5) notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office at least 15 working days in advance should the applicants need to revise the dive procedures to accommodate changes in diving operations that affect NOC's ability to comply with the conditions of the permanent variance; (6) obtain OSHA's written approval prior to implementing the revision in their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect NOC's ability to comply with the conditions in the permanent variance; and (7) by January 31 of each calendar year provide OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office with a report summarizing the dives completed during the previous calendar year and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents.
OSHA notes that the requirement for completing and submitting the hyperbaric exposure-related (recordable) incident investigation report (OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report) is more restrictive than the current recordkeeping requirement of completing the form within seven (7) calendar days of the incident (1904.29(b)(3)). This modified, more stringent incident investigation and reporting requirement is restricted to intervention-related (recordable) incidents only. Providing rapid notification to OSHA is essential because time is a critical element in OSHA's ability to determine the continued effectiveness of the variance conditions in preventing injuries and illnesses, and NOC's identification and implementation of appropriate corrective and preventive actions.
Further, these notification requirements also enable the applicants, NOC's employees, and OSHA to assess the effectiveness of the permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the NOC's workers and, based on this assessment, decide whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the permanent variance. Timely notification permits OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent possible further injuries and illnesses. Providing notification to employees informs them of the precautions NOC has taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Additionally, this condition requires NOC to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for the main office, or transfers the operations covered by the permanent variance to a successor company. In addition, the condition specifies that OSHA must approve any potential transfer of the permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicants regarding the status of the permanent variance, and expedite the agency's administration and enforcement of the permanent variance. Stipulating that an applicant must have OSHA's approval to transfer a variance to a successor company provides assurance that the successor company has knowledge of, and will comply with, the conditions the permanent variance specifies, thereby ensuring the safety of workers involved in performing the operations covered by the permanent variance.
As of the effective date of this final order, OSHA is revoking the interim order granted to the employer on November 20, 2023 (88 FR 80764).
OSHA issues this final order authorizing NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory Operations Contract (NOC or the applicants) to comply with the following condition instead of complying with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) of OSHA's commercial diving standard. This final order applies to all NOC employees located at 13000 Space Center Boulevard, Houston, Texas, 77059.
The permanent variance applies only to NOC's diving operations conducted for NASA and performed at NASA's NBL; and
Performed in compliance with all applicable conditions of Subpart T of 29 CFR 1910 except for the requirement specified by 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) when conducting commercial diving operations.
The following abbreviations apply to this permanent variance:
For any dive at the NBL that is within the no-decompression limits and using nitrox as a breathing mixture, NOC must instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least ten (10) minutes after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate).
This condition requires the applicants to implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication are intended to ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and
This permanent variance requires NOC to:
1. Follow the requirements of the NASA NBL Safety Program, including the NBL Safe Practices Manual, as well as any instruction provided by NASA's DSB;
2. Ensure that prior to entering the water, the NBL medical officer of the day or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all NOC employees conducting dives at the NBL for fitness to dive.
In addition to completing OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, NOC must maintain records of recordable injuries that occur as a result of diving operations conducted for NASA under the NBL.
Information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under condition G (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report Form) to investigate and record dive-related recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12, will enable NOC and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in preventing DCS and other dive-related injuries and illnesses.
1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, NOC must:
(a) Notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office at
(b) Provide OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report);
(c) Provide certification to OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within 15 working days of the incident that NOC informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation (including the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).
(d) Include on the OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented;
(e) Provide certification that NOC informed affected divers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation;
(f) Notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within fifteen (15) working days should NOC need to revise their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect NOC's ability to comply with the conditions of the permanent variance;
(g) Obtain OSHA's written approval prior to implementing the revision in their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect NOC's ability to comply with the conditions in the permanent variance;
(h) By the fifteenth (15th) of January, at the beginning of each new calendar year, provide OTPCA and Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office, with a report summarizing the dives completed during the previous year and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents;
(i) Notify the OTPCA and the Houston South OSHA Area Office as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) days, after NOC has knowledge that they will:
a. Cease doing business;
b. Change the location and address of the main office for managing the diving operations specified herein; or
c. Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor company.
(j) Notify all affected employees of this permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its application for a permanent variance.
2. This permanent variance cannot be transferred to another company.
OSHA hereby grants a permanent variance to NOC, subject to the conditions outlined above.
David L. Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM), for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. TUVAM requests the addition of five test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 8, 2026.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. TUVAM requests the addition of five test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVAM submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on December 17, 2024 (OSHA-2007-0043-0073), requesting the expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition to include seven additional test standards. This application was revised on February 6, 2026 (OSHA-2007-0043-0072) to remove two standards from the original request. This expansion covers the remaining five standards. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews with respect to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in TUVAM's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the agency evaluates the document to: (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL; (2) verify the document represents a product and not a component; and (3) verify the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or operational performance specifications). OSHA becomes aware of new test standards through various avenues. For example, OSHA may become aware of new test standards by: (1) monitoring notifications issued by certain Standards Development Organizations; (2) reviewing applications by NRTLs or applicants seeking recognition to include new test standards in their scopes of recognition; and (3) obtaining notification from manufacturers, manufacturing organizations, government agencies, or other parties. OSHA may determine to include a new test standard in the list, for example, if the test standard is for a particular type of product that another test standard also covers or it covers a type of product that no standard previously covered.
In this notice, OSHA proposes adding four new test standards to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standards that are new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determines that these test standards are appropriate test standards. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that TUVAM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding their recognition to include the addition of five additional testing standards for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVAM's application. OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL, and whether OSHA should add the four test standards specified above to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant TUVAM's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective August 21, 2026.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA) as a NRTL. ITSNA's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
ITSNA submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on October 11, 2024 (OSHA-2007-0039-0075), requesting the addition of two standards to the NRTL scope of recognition. This application was amended on March 11, 2026 to remove one standard from the original application. (OSHA-2007-0039-0076). OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review in response to this application. OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application for test standard expansion.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing ITSNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the ITSNA's expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined ITSNA's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that ITSNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of ITSNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of ITSNA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of compliance to the test standards listed below in Table 1.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, ITSNA also must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
1. ITSNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change in ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. ITSNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. ITSNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on ITSNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of ITSNA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA grants a permanent variance to KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR) from a provision of the OSHA standard that regulates commercial diving operations.
The permanent variance specified by this notice becomes effective on August 21, 2026 and shall remain in effect until it is modified or revoked, whichever occurs first.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA's standards in subpart T of 29 CFR 1910 govern commercial diving operations. On June 20, 2022, KBR Wyle Services, LLC (KBR or the applicant), submitted an application for a permanent variance under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (Variances and other relief under section 6(d)), from a provision of OSHA's commercial diving operations (CDO) standard that regulates the use of decompression chambers (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0010-0002). KBR's application also requested an interim order pending OSHA's decision on the variance application. KBR's corporate offices are located at 601 Jefferson Street, Houston, Texas 77002, and KBR identified an additional place of employment involved in the variance application: NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, 13000 Space Center Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77059.
This notice addresses KBR's application for a permanent variance and interim order from the provision of OSHA's CDO standard at 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) that requires the employer to instruct divers engaged in commercial diving operations to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) for any dive outside the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 feet of sea water (fsw), or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture.
OSHA reviewed KBR's application for the variance and interim order based on the alternate standard OSHA granted NASA on June 30, 2021, and determined that KBR appropriately submitted in compliance with the applicable variance procedures in Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(d)) and OSHA's regulations at 29 CFR 1905.11 (Variances and other relief under section 6(d)), including the requirement that the applicant inform workers and their representatives of their rights to petition the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health for a hearing on the variance application.
OSHA additionally reviewed the alternative procedures in KBR's application, along with the alternate standard granted to NASA on June 30, 2021, and preliminarily determined that KBR's proposed alternative, subject to the conditions in the request and imposed by the interim order, provides measures that are as safe and healthful as those required by the cited OSHA standard. On November 20, 2023, OSHA published a
OSHA did not receive any comments or other information disputing the preliminary determination that the alternative was at least as safe as OSHA's standard, nor any objections to OSHA granting a permanent variance. Accordingly, through this notice, OSHA grants KBR a permanent variance subject to the conditions set out in this document.
On December 15, 2020, NASA submitted an application (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0010-0001) to OSHA proposing one alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2), Subpart T, and included with its application extensive supporting introductory, background, and explanatory information (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0010-0003). NASA sought an alternate standard that would permit the NBL to conduct post-dive health monitoring tailored to NASA's specific dive operations and medical surveillance capabilities.
The alternate standard application stated that NASA operates training and simulation activities for space operations that routinely involve underwater diving operations in preparation of upcoming missions. NASA described the NBL as a large, indoor tank of water, where astronauts perform simulated extravehicular activities (EVAs), also known as spacewalks, in preparation for upcoming space missions. The NBL is a controlled environment with a maximum depth of 40 feet. Its primary purpose is to provide a large-scale underwater environment where NASA personnel can simulate a weightless environment by balancing the buoyancy of a suited subject submerged in the water. Astronaut trainees, suited in Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs) adapted for use in water, can then perform a variety of specialized activities on spacecraft and Space Station analogs in the water. The NBL uses nitrox (46% enriched air nitrox (EAN
NASA asserted in its request for the alternate standard that diving on nitrox in the NBL is safer and less likely to cause decompression sickness (DCS) than diving on compressed air due to the lower partial pressure of nitrogen in the gas mixture, giving a shallower equivalent air depth (EAD). The EAD formula can accurately estimate the depth allowing for DCS risk calculation based on equivalent nitrogen pressures and dive durations used in air diving. In other words, breathing EAN
Additionally, the alternate standard application examined the use of nitrox in the water, and the risk of oxygen toxicity, specifically the risk of seizure resulting from central nervous system (CNS) oxygen toxicity. NASA asserted in the alternate standard application that with the hard floor at 40 feet in the tank, there are no cases in medical or diving literature of seizure in water at pressures of PO
The alternate standard application asserted that the proposed alternate standard provides equivalent protection to the OSHA standard. First, NASA stated that the fixed diving depth of the pool has eliminated the risk of decompression sickness. As a result, the need to remain in the vicinity of the chamber is for the control and treatment of arterial gas embolism only. Second, NASA asserted that a shorter
NASA's alternate standard application also explained that NASA employees working within the NBL work together to ensure the availability of qualified personnel and certified systems to meet NASA's EVA requirements. NASA stated that safety and utility divers support suited trainees at all times in the water. Suited crew use surface-supplied nitrox via an umbilical, and support divers breath nitrox via self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) while working in the tank. NBL activities routinely involve dozens of trainees and divers, requiring hundreds of dive hours per week. NASA asserted in the alternate standard application that the NBL medial officer or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all divers for fitness prior to entering the water. Only the medical officer performs fitness to dive exams for suited subjects. These exams include obtaining vital signs and information on any changes to medical history, including but not limited to, medications; physical fitness; and cardiopulmonary and ear, nose, and throat examinations. Divers and suited subjects may be disqualified pending treatment or further evaluation and management if there are any concerning abnormalities. NASA also certified that it will apply and use the alternate standard only at the NBL and that NASA will not apply or use the alternate standard at any other location or during the other underwater activities NASA performs.
After fully considering NASA's application and its responses to OSHA's follow-up questions (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0010-0004), OSHA approved the alternate standard that NASA proposed for use solely at NASA's NBL (Docket No. OSHA-2022-0010-0002). KBR now seeks a permanent variance covering its employees conducting commercial diving operations at the NBL based on NASA's approved alternate standard.
The information that follows about KBR comes from the KBR variance application. KBR is a contractor for NASA, a federal government agency that is responsible for science and technology related to air and space. On June 30, 2021, OSHA granted an alternate standard
KBR's divers conduct diving operations for NASA at the NBL facility in Houston, Texas. NASA requires all divers to follow all their internal requirements, including the NBL Diving Program and the NASA alternate standard, which can only cover NASA employees. To permit KBR's divers to dive under the same standards as their NASA-employed colleagues, KBR seeks a permanent variance from 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) based on the same conditions that apply to NASA divers under the NASA alternate standard.
KBR contends that the proposed variance conditions outlined in its application provide KBR's workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the provisions of OSHA's CDO standard. KBR also certified that it is not contesting any citations involving the standards that are the subject of this application. As a NASA contractor, KBR asserts that its divers must strictly follow the requirements of the NBL, which include following the conditions of the NASA alternate standard. However, the NASA alternate standard's coverage does not, and cannot, include KBR-employed divers, or any private-sector employees, even though they work side-by-side with NASA-employed divers during NBL operations. KBR states that its divers undergo the same training as NASA NBL employees, and that there are no differences between NASA and KBR divers regarding medical clearance procedures and standards, training materials, equipment used, equipment maintenance, and diving procedures. Accordingly, KBR seeks permission from OSHA to conduct dive activities for NASA at the NBL under the same standard regulating the time required for NASA employees diving at the NBL, on nitrox and within the no-decompression limits, pursuant to the NASA alternate standard rather than the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.432(b)(2).
OSHA's standards regulating the availability and use of decompression chambers require that: for any dive within the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 fsw, or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture, the employer must instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber that is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) (1910.423(b)(2)).
In adopting the conditions of the NASA alternate standard, KBR's application proposes deviating from the decompression chamber availability and capability requirements in OSHA's CDO standard. As OSHA explained when it granted the NASA Alternate Diving Standard, the purpose of having a decompression chamber available and
KBR's proposed variance would adopt the conditions of the NASA Alternate Diving Standard that permit NASA to deviate from the requirement of 1910.423(b)(2) that the employer instruct all divers who dive deeper than 100 fsw or who dive using mixed breathing gas to remain awake and in the vicinity of a decompression chamber for one hour after the dive. The NASA alternate standard allows divers at NASA's NBL who are diving on nitrox, within the no-decompression limits, to be instructed to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least 10 minutes after the dive. In other words, the NASA alternate Section 1910.423(b)(2) requires that any NASA diver at NASA's NBL who dives using nitrox within the no-decompression limits will be instructed to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber for at least ten minutes after the completion of the dive.
When granting NASA's request for an alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2), OSHA explained that the CDO standard sets the 100 fsw limit based on the increased risk of developing DCS and AGE on dives deeper than 100 fsw. However, OSHA explained that the agency amended the CDO standard in 2004 to permit employers of recreational diving instructors and diving guides to comply with an alternative set of decompression chamber requirements (see 69 FR 7351 (February 17, 2004)).
OSHA explained in the NASA Alternate Diving Standard that it created this exemption for diving guides because the agency determined that the elevated levels of oxygen in nitrox breathing-gas mixtures reduced the incidence of DCS compared to breathing air at the same depths, and therefore found that the risk of DCS was minimal.
After considering the statistics and information regarding NBL operations that NASA submitted, OSHA concluded that NASA's proposed alternate standard would provide equivalent protection to the CDO standard when NBL divers use nitrox breathing-gas mixtures. KBR's proposed variance would adopt conditions identical to those for which OSHA approved NASA's alternate standard to 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2).
OSHA conducted a review of KBR's variance application and the supporting technical documentation. After completing the review of the variance application, the NASA alternate standard, and related supporting materials, OSHA concludes that:
1. The proposed conditions would provide KBR's divers with protection equivalent to the CDO standard;
2. There are no differences in the training requirements, medical clearance procedures and standards, equipment use and maintenance requirements, or diving procedures that apply to NASA-employed and KBR-employed divers who dive at the NBL; and
3. Diving safety for the NBL will be maximized when the diving practices of KBR-employed divers are identical to those of NASA-employed divers.
After reviewing the proposed alternative, OSHA has determined that KBR proposed to implement effective alternative means of protection that will protect its employees as effectively as the requirements of paragraph 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) of the CDO standard. Further, under section 6(d) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on the record discussed above, OSHA finds that when the employer complies with the conditions of the variance, the working conditions of the employer's workers are at least as safe and healthful as if the employer complied with the working conditions specified by paragraph 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) of OSHA's CDO standard. Therefore, under the terms of this variance, KBR must: (1) comply with the conditions listed below under section V of this notice (Order) for the period between the effective date of this notice and until the agency modifies or revokes this final order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13; (2) comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1910; and (3) provide a copy of this
The conditions for the variance are set out in the Order at the end of this document. This section provides additional detail regarding the conditions in the permanent variance that OSHA is granting to KBR.
The scope of the permanent variance limits coverage only to the commercial diving operations performed at NASA's NBL. Clearly defining the scope of the permanent variance provides KBR, KBR's employees, potential future applicants, other stakeholders, the public, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work situations to which the permanent variance applies. To the extent that KBR exceeds the defined scope of this variance, it must comply with OSHA's standards.
OSHA's grant of a permanent variance applies only to KBR, and only to work performed at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. The permanent variance does not apply to any other employers or any other worksite. Additionally, coverage is limited to the work situations specified under the “Scope and Application” section of Subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations (1910.401(a)), and does not apply to commercial diving operations that are already exempted under 1910.401(a)(2).
Condition B defines abbreviations used in the permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the permanent variance.
This condition requires that, for any dive within the no-decompression limits and using nitrox as a breathing mixture, KBR will instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber which is at the dive location for at least ten minutes after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate). When using a nitrox breathing-gas mixture, KBR will be required to meet the no-decompression provisions of Appendix C to the CDO standard (Use of No-Decompression Limits).
This condition requires the applicant to implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication are intended to ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. This condition also requires the applicants to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during diving activities. Availability of such reliable means of communications enables affected workers and support personnel to respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions or emergencies that may develop during diving activities at NASA's NBL.
This condition requires KBR to follow the requirements of the NASA NBL Safety Program, including the NBL Safe Practices Manual, and any instruction provided by NASA's Dive Safety Board (DSB) to qualify their employees to perform diving activities at the NBL. Further, KBR must ensure that the NBL medical officer of the day or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all employees conducting dives at the NBL for fitness to dive prior to entering the water. This condition specifies actions an affected worker must be able to perform safely during diving activities, including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and qualified workers performing the required dive tasks ensures that they recognize and respond appropriately to underwater safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements enable KBR divers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing worker injury, illness, and fatalities.
Under OSHA's existing recordkeeping requirements in 29 CFR part 1904 regarding Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, KBR must maintain a record of any recordable injury, illness, or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904) resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions, or any other work conditions, by completing the OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses. KBR did not seek a variance from this standard and therefore must comply fully with those requirements.
Under this condition, the applicant must, within specified periods of time: (1) notify OSHA of any recordable injury, illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or fatality that occurs as a result of diving operations within eight (8) hours of the incident; (2) provide OSHA's Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report) of these events; (3) include on OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented; (4) provide the certification that affected workers were informed of the incident and the results of the incident investigation; (5) notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office at least 15 working days in advance should the applicant need to revise their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect their ability to comply with the conditions of the permanent variance; (6) obtain OSHA's written approval prior to implementing the revision in their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect their ability to comply with the conditions in the permanent variance; and (7) provide OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office, by January 31 of each calendar year, with a report summarizing the dives completed during the previous calendar year and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents.
OSHA notes that the requirement for completing and submitting the hyperbaric exposure-related (recordable) incident investigation report (OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report) is more restrictive than the current recordkeeping requirement of completing the form within seven (7) calendar days of the incident (1904.29(b)(3)). However, OSHA has restricted this modified, more stringent incident investigation and reporting requirement to intervention-related (recordable) incidents only. Providing rapid notification to OSHA is essential because time is a critical element in OSHA's ability to determine the continued effectiveness of the variance conditions in preventing injuries and illnesses, and KBR's identification and implementation of appropriate corrective and preventive actions.
Further, these notification requirements also enable the applicant, its employees, and OSHA to assess the effectiveness of the permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the KBR's workers and, based on this assessment, whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the permanent variance. Timely notification permits OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent possible further injuries and illnesses. Providing notification to employees informs them of the precautions KBR has taken to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Additionally, this condition requires the applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for the main office, or transfers the operations the permanent variance covers to a successor company. In addition, the condition specifies that OSHA must approve the potential transfer of the permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements
As of the effective date of this final order, OSHA is revoking the interim order granted to the employer on November 20, 2023 (88 FR 80771).
OSHA issues this final order authorizing KBR Wyle Services LLC (KBR or the applicant) to comply with the following condition instead of complying with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) of OSHA's commercial diving standard. This final order applies to all KBR employees located at 13000 Space Center Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77059.
The permanent variance applies only to KBR's diving operations conducted for NASA and performed at NASA's NBL; and
Performed in compliance with all applicable conditions of Subpart T of 29 CFR 1910 except for the requirement specified by 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2) when conducting commercial diving operations.
The following abbreviations apply to this permanent variance:
For any dive at the NBL that is within the no-decompression limits and using nitrox as a breathing mixture, KBR must instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber at the dive location for at least ten (10) minutes after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate).
This condition requires the applicant to implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication are intended to ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start of each shift. This condition also requires the applicant to ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during diving activities. Availability of such reliable means of communications enables affected workers and support personnel to respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions or emergencies that may develop during diving activities at NASA's NBL.
This permanent variance requires KBR to:
1. Follow the requirements of the NASA NBL Safety Program, including the NBL Safe Practices Manual, as well as any instruction provided by NASA's DSB;
2. Ensure that prior to entering the water, the NBL medical officer of the day or a human test support group medical technician physically examines all KBR employees conducting dives at the NBL for fitness to dive.
In addition to completing OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, and OSHA Form 300, Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, KBR must maintain records of recordable injuries that occur as a result of diving operations conducted for NASA under the NBL. Information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under condition G (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report) to investigate and record dive-related recordable injuries as 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12 define, will enable KBR and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent variance in preventing DCS and other dive-related injuries and illnesses.
1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein, KBR must:
a. Notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office at
b. Provide OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report);
c. Provide certification to OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within 15 working days of the incident that KBR informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation (including the root-cause determination and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).
d. Include on the OSHA Form 301, Injury and Illness Incident Report, information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented;
e. Provide their certification that they informed affected divers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation;
f. Notify OTPCA and the Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office within fifteen (15) working days should the
g. Obtain OSHA's written approval prior to implementing the revision in their dive procedures to accommodate changes in their diving operations that affect KBR's ability to comply with the conditions in the permanent variance;
h. By the fifteenth (15th) of January, at the beginning of each new calendar year, provide OTPCA and Houston South Texas OSHA Area Office with a report summarizing the dives completed during the previous year and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents;
i. Notify the OTPCA and the Houston South OSHA Area Office as soon as possible, but no later than seven (7) days, after KBR has knowledge that it will:
a. Cease doing business;
b. Change the location and address of the main office for managing the diving operations specified herein; or
c. Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor company.
j. Notify all affected employees of this permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its application for a permanent variance.
2. This permanent variance cannot be transferred to another company.
OSHA hereby grants a permanent variance to KBR, subject to the conditions outlined above.
David L. Keeling, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Cadmium in General Industry Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by October 20, 2026.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-1950.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to protect workers from the health effects associated with occupational exposure to cadmium. Such exposure to cadmium may cause lung cancer, prostate cancer, non-malignant respiratory disease, acute pneumonitis, fever and chest pain, severe weakness, coughing and tightness of the chest, and kidney disease.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Cadmium in General Industry Standard. The agency is seeking an adjustment decrease in burden of 38,575 hours going from 115,626 to 77,051 hours. The decrease is due to an error in the labor time per response for the notification of the monitoring results in the previous ICR. The labor time per response for this collection requirement is 5 minutes instead of the 30 minutes that was taken in the previously approved paperwork package. Additionally, the agency is requesting an increase in capital cost going from $5,483,542 to 6,480,423, a total increase of $996,881.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the applications of SGS North America, Inc. for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the applications.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 8, 2026.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. SGS requests the addition of two test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
SGS submitted two applications to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition: the first application dated January 9, 2025 (OSHA-2006-0040-0097) requested the addition of one test standard, and the second application dated July 18, 2025 (OSHA-2006-0040-0096) requesting the addition of another test standard. In total, the expansion applications requested the addition of two test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packets and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review in response to these applications. OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the applications for test standard expansion.
Table 1, below, lists the appropriate test standards found in SGS's applications for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
SGS submitted acceptable applications for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application files and pertinent documentation indicates that SGS has met the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include the addition of the two test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed in Table 1. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of SGS's applications.
OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant SGS's applications for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the applications. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878; June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Nemko North America, Inc., for expansion of the recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before September 8, 2026.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA), is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. NNA requests the addition of one test site to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
NNA currently has four facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with the headquarters located at: Nemko North America, Inc., 2210 Faraday Avenue, Suite 150, Carlsbad, California 92008. A complete list of NNA's scope of recognition is available at
NNA submitted an application on July 19, 2024 (OSHA-2013-0016-0036), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include one additional test site located at: Philip Pedersens Vei 11, 1366 Lysaker, Norway. OSHA staff performed a review of NNA's testing facilities at Nemko Norway on August 25—26, 2025 in which assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. NNA has addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
NNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that NNA has met the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include one additional test site. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of NNA's application.
OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether NNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant NNA's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for UL LLC, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the final decision to add one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on August 21, 2026.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of UL LLC (UL) as a NRTL. UL's expansion covers the addition of three test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
UL submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on August 8, 2025 (OSHA-2009-0025-0082), requesting the addition of three test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review in response to this application. OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application for test standard expansion.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing UL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the UL's application, go to
OSHA staff examined UL's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2 below lists the standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will add it to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, UL must abide by the following conditions of the NRTL recognition:
1. UL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. UL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. UL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on UL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of UL as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above. Additionally, OSHA will add one standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878, June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1444, proposed Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.264, “Assessing Public Health Risk Associated with Chemical Hazards of Licensed Material.” This DG describes a methodology that is acceptable to the staff of the NRC to meet regulatory requirements assessing public health risk associated with chemical hazards of licensed material.
Submit comments by September 21, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Anders Gilbertson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1541; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-3334 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Proposed RG 1.264 entitled “Assessing Public Health Risk Associated with Chemical Hazards of Licensed Material Under 10 CFR part 53,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1444.
This DG is being issued to provide guidance on an acceptable approach for meeting the regulation under paragraph 53.440(k) of title 10 of the
The staff is also issuing for public comment a draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML26091A264). The staff developed a regulatory analysis to assess the value of issuing or revising an RG as well as alternative courses of action.
Issuance of DG-1444, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests”; affect issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certificates, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”; or constitute forward fitting as defined in MD 8.4, because, as explained in this DG, licensees would not be required to comply with the positions set forth in this DG.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that this DG is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft report; extension of comment period.
On July 22, 2026, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on draft NUREG-1220, Revision 2, “Training Review Criteria and Procedures.” The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on August 21, 2026.
The August 21, 2026, due date for comments on the draft NUREG published July 22, 2026 (91 FR 46175), is extended. Comments should be filed no later than September 21, 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.
You may submit comments by any of the following; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Maggie Chauhan, telephone: 301-415-0365; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-1849 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On July 22, 2026, the NRC published a notice in the
The public comment period was originally scheduled to close August 21, 2026. The NRC is extending the public comment period on this document until September 21, 2026, to ensure meaningful public participation and uphold the agency's commitment to openness and transparency. Given overlapping and complex rulemakings currently open for comment, additional time prevents stakeholder fatigue, enables thorough technical and policy reviews, and allows for coordinated responses across related dockets. This extension supports high-quality, complete feedback and facilitates robust engagement from all interested parties, including public groups, industry experts, and tribal nations.
Comments should be filed no later than September 21, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on September 9, 2026, to discuss and provide recommendations from the subcommittee on reducing barriers to medical use licensing rulemaking. Topic is tentative based on its rulemaking schedule. Meeting information, including a copy of the agenda and handouts, will be available on the ACMUI's Meetings and Related Documents web page at
Ms. Sarah Hoenig, email:
The ACMUI Chair, Hossein Jadvar, M.D., Ph.D., will preside over the meeting. Dr. Jadvar will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Ms. Sarah Hoenig using the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by the close of business on September 4, 2026, and must only pertain to the topics on the agenda.
2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the ACMUI Chair.
3. The draft transcript and meeting summary will be available on ACMUI's website
4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Ms. Sarah Hoenig of their planned participation.
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guidance; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is soliciting public comment on its draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), OAR/DARP-ISG-2026-XX, “Evaluations of Risk Assessments for Risk-Informed Decision-Making for Regulatory Applications.” If finalized, this ISG will provide guidance to the staff for reviewing systematic risk assessment methods, including probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) and other systematic risk evaluations (SREs). This ISG will supplement existing guidance to facilitate the staff's understanding of the uses of risk information in regulatory applications and application of principles of risk-informed decision-making.
Submit comments by September 21, 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.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods, however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jack Minzer Bryant, Office of Advanced Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0610; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-3268 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is anticipating a high volume of license applications for new and advanced reactors. Many new applications are expected to leverage risk assessments to establish the safety of facility designs that can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public. This ISG will supplement existing guidance to support staff in assessing how risk information is used in applications, determining the acceptability of risk assessments, and integrating risk insights into licensing decisions.
The NRC has historically recognized the value of risk assessment in regulatory decision making, as reflected in the Commission's Final Policy Statement on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities (60 FR 42622). Many of the concepts and terms related to using PRAs, risk insights, and risk-informed processes in regulatory activities are described in the Commission Staff Requirements Memorandum, SRM-SECY-98-144, “Staff Requirements—SECY-98-144—White Paper on Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation.” Implementing the use of PRA methods has been supported by the issuance of regulatory guidance, including Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, which describes an approach for using PRA in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis, and RGs 1.200 and 1.247 (for trial use), which provided guidance on acceptability of PRAs for light-water reactors (LWRs) and non-LWRs, respectively.
This ISG provides staff guidance on evaluating risk assessment methods, including PRAs and SREs. This ISG provides guidance on evaluating the characteristics and attributes of a risk assessment using a flexible approach that can accommodate a range of risk-informed applications. This ISG builds upon, and aligns with, the risk-informed decision-making principles of RG 1.174 to consider a risk assessment along with other factors to determine its acceptability in the context of its uses to support an application. This ISG leverages the high-level approach discussed in RGs 1.200 and 1.247 (for trial use) and considers acceptability of a risk assessment in terms of establishing the analysis scope, providing an adequate level of detail, demonstrating use of acceptable methods, and ensuring representation of the facility. While these considerations were identified in the context of development of a PRA guided by a consensus standard, the same considerations can be broadly applied to other risk assessment methods.
This ISG is applicable to the review of applications for permits and licenses that submit risk-informed, performance-based applications for construction permits (CPs) or operating licenses (OLs) under part 50 of title 10 of the
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determined that draft ISG, “Acceptability of Risk Assessments for Risk-Informed Decision-Making for Regulatory Applications,” is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Application for direct transfer of licenses; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) received and is considering approval of an application filed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP) and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (DEC) on March 20, 2026. The application seeks NRC approval of the direct transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively; Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2; and Renewed Materials License No. SNM-2502 for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, currently held by DEP, to DEC and issuance of conforming license amendments.
Submit comments by September 21, 2026. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 10, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Robert Fisher, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6328; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-3928 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions 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 the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering the issuance of an order under sections 50.80 and 72.50 of title 10 of the
No physical changes to the facilities or operational changes are being proposed in the license transfer application.
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50 state that no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or the license of an independent spent fuel storage installation that does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves, respectively, no significant hazards consideration, or no genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91
Within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted as described in the
Within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
Petitions must be filed no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 20 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website (
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website (
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available on the NRC's public website (
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to this application, see the application dated March 20, 2026 (ADAMS Accession No. ML26079A150).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of August 24, 31, and September 7, 14, 21, 28, 2026. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public and closed.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 31, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 7, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 14, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 21, 2026.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's
1.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 13.4(a) regarding the public disclosure of the sources of data that the Exchange utilizes when performing: (i) order handling; (ii) order routing; (iii) order execution; and (iv) related compliance processes to reflect the operation of the Texas Stock Exchange LLC (“TXSE Exchange”) as a registered national securities exchange
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13.4(a) (Usage of Data Feeds) regarding the public disclosure of the sources of data that the Exchange utilizes when performing: (i) order handling; (ii) order routing; (iii) order execution; and (iv) related compliance processes to reflect the operation of the TXSE Exchange as a registered national securities exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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 that the proposal to update Rule 13.4(a) to include TXSE Exchange will ensure that the Rule publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest because it provides additional specificity, clarity and transparency.
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. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance competition because including all of the exchanges enhances transparency and enables investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Rules at Options 7, Section 4 (Complex Order Fees and Rebates) and Section 6 (Other Options Fees and Rebates).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the complex order
Currently, the Exchange offers tiered complex order rebates for Select Symbols
The above rebates are provided per contract, per leg, if the order trades with Non-Priority Customer
The Exchange also offers additional tiered rebates, in addition to the existing Priority Customer Complex Tier rebates, for Select Symbols and for Non-Select Symbols, provided the Member has also transacted an average daily volume of greater than 10,000 contracts of FLEX
The additional tiered rebate, in addition to the Priority Customer Complex Tier rebates, for Select Symbols is currently as follows:
The additional tiered rebate, in addition to the Priority Customer Complex Tier rebates, for Non-Select Symbols is currently as follows:
The Exchange proposes to add a note 18 to Section 4 that would read as follows: “Members whose Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Complex Order Volume (excluding Crossing Orders and Responses to Crossing Orders) calculated as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume would otherwise qualify them for Priority Customer Complex rebates below Tier 4 will receive the Tier 4 Priority Customer Complex rebates if such Members have Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume of 1.2% or more as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. Those Members would also be eligible to receive the Tier 4 additional rebates in notes ** and ## of this Section.” In other words, Members whose complex order volume might only qualify them for Tiers 1, 2, or 3 of the Priority Customer Complex rebates, would now qualify for Tier 4 of the Priority Customer Complex rebates if they have Total Affiliated Member
The composition of national options order flow can vary significantly from month to month. Therefore, on a given month a Member may not execute sufficient Priority Customer Complex order flow on the Exchange to qualify for Tier 4 or higher of the Priority Customer Complex rebates, even if the Member has Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume of 1.2% or more as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. This new provision would incentivize Members that transact a large overall amount of order flow on the Exchange to transact more of their Priority Customer Complex order flow to the Exchange, by providing them with the more attractive Priority Customer Complex pricing provided by Tier 4 of the Priority Customer Complex rebates, even if their Priority Customer Complex order flow might otherwise only qualify them for Tiers 1, 2, or 3.
Currently, the Exchange offers a PIM
The Exchange proposes to modify the amount of this rebate, from $0.11 per contract, to $0.105 per contract.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that its proposal to add new note 18 to Options 7, Section 4 is reasonable because it is designed to incentivize Members who have Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume of 1.2% or more as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume to transact more of their Priority Customer complex order flow on the Exchange in order to qualify for the more attractive Tier 4 Priority Customer Complex rebates. As explained above, the composition of national options order flow can vary significantly from month to month, so a Member may not always execute sufficient Priority Customer complex order flow on the Exchange in a given month to qualify for Tier 4 or higher of the Priority Customer Complex rebates, even if the Member has Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume of 1.2% or more as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume. The proposed 1.2% Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume qualification is set at a level that requires a meaningful commitment of overall order flow to the Exchange, and the Exchange believes that offering the Tier 4 rebates on this basis will help attract additional Priority Customer complex order flow to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to add new note 18 to Section 4 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the new incentive will be uniformly applied to all Members that meet or exceed the objective, transparent 1.2% Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume threshold, and any Member may qualify by transacting sufficient volume on the Exchange. All Members qualifying under note 18 will receive the same Tier 4 Priority Customer Complex rebates (and, where applicable, the same Tier 4 additional rebates in notes ** and ## of Section 4). Offering the note 18 incentive only to Priority Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants, particularly in response to pricing, facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the PIM rebate in Options 7, Section 6.C from $0.11 per contract to $0.105 per contract is reasonable. The Exchange has limited resources to allocate to its incentive programs and periodically assesses its fee structure to ensure that its rebates continue to attract order flow while remaining sustainable. The proposed rebate of $0.105 per contract represents only a modest reduction from the current $0.11 per contract level; the Exchange believes that this rebate remains attractive and will continue to incentivize qualifying Electronic Access Members to submit smaller-sized Priority Customer Regular Orders to PIM for price improvement, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the PIM rebate is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the modified rebate will apply uniformly to all Electronic Access Members that satisfy the objective volume qualification (utilizing PIM to execute more than 0.75% of Priority Customer volume in Regular Orders, calculated as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume per day in a given month) with respect to all Priority Customer Regular Orders under 250 contracts submitted to PIM. Any Electronic Access Member is able to qualify for the rebate by meeting the applicable volume threshold, and all qualifying Members will receive the same $0.105 per contract rebate on such orders. Paying this rebate only for Priority Customer Regular Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers, and increased Market Maker activity facilitates tighter spreads that may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
The Exchange's proposal to add new note 18 to Options 7, Section 4 will not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The new incentive will be applied uniformly to all Members that meet or exceed the objective, transparent 1.2% Total Affiliated Member or Affiliated Entity Volume threshold as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, and any Member may qualify by transacting sufficient volume on the Exchange. All Members qualifying under note 18 will receive the same Tier 4 Priority Customer Complex rebates (and, where applicable, the same Tier 4 additional rebates in notes ** and ## of Section 4). Moreover, offering the note 18 incentive only to Priority Customer orders does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants, particularly in response to pricing, facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the PIM rebate in Options 7, Section 6.C from $0.11 per contract to $0.105 per contract likewise will not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition. The modified rebate will apply uniformly to all Electronic Access Members that satisfy the same objective volume qualification, with respect to all Priority Customer Regular Orders under 250 contracts submitted to PIM. Any Electronic Access Member is able to qualify for the rebate by meeting the applicable volume threshold. While the rebate is targeted at Priority Customer Regular Orders, this does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers, and increased Market Maker activity facilitates tighter spreads that may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering that was previously proposed but not implemented. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering
First, the Exchange proposes to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings set forth in Rule General 8, Section 1(b), including their associated fees and explanatory language. These offerings consist of market data connectivity to the Nasdaq Data Center for SIAC, CTS/CQS, OpenBook Ultra, and ArcaBook Multicast delivered via a fiber optic network. The Exchange is terminating these offerings effective September 30, 2026, because they are subscribed to by fewer than three customers, these offerings are available from vendors other than the Exchange, and the Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice that the offerings will terminate on that date. The Exchange also proposes to remove the related explanatory language providing, in general, that pricing is for connectivity only, is similar to connectivity fees imposed by other vendors, is generally based on the amount of bandwidth needed to accommodate a particular feed, and that the Exchange is not the exclusive method to obtain market data connectivity.
Second, the Exchange proposes to further amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove the multicast market data feeds delivered to the Nasdaq Data Center via a wireless network, including microwave or millimeter wave connectivity. The specific wireless connectivity offerings being removed are NYSE Equities (Arca Integrated), NYSE Equities (NYSE Integrated), BATS Multicast PITCH for BZX and BYX, Direct EDGE Depth of Book for EDGA and EDGX, CME Multicast Total, CME Equities Futures Data Only, CME Fixed Income Futures Data Only, and CME Metals Futures Data Only. The Exchange also proposes to remove from subparagraph (b) of Rule General 8 the associated installation fees, recurring monthly fees, as well as the associated volume-based discount language applicable to microwave or millimeter wave wireless subscriptions.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to discontinue the POD offering described in SR-GEMX-2024-16. In that filing, the Exchange proposed to launch POD as a managed colocation solution under which applications would be deployed on managed infrastructure in the form of virtual or dedicated servers in the colocation space. The Exchange stated in SR-GEMX-2024-16 that implementation of the POD offering would coincide with a subsequent fee filing establishing applicable fees. The Exchange did not file fees for POD and did not otherwise offer the POD services proposed in SR-GEMX-2024-16. The offering did not attract sufficient demand and therefore never fully materialized. The Exchange now proposes to discontinue the offering and not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-GEMX-2024-16.
The proposed changes are designed to update the rulebook to eliminate products or services that are no longer offered, are being terminated, or were never implemented. The proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, or obligation, and it does not affect the availability of any currently offered Exchange service. The proposal also would thus update the Exchange's rulebook, enhance its clarity, and facilitate its use.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that the Exchange's rules accurately reflect the connectivity services that are currently available. Removing obsolete rule text relating to the Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026, will reduce potential confusion and improve the clarity and accuracy of the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice of the termination, the offerings are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds are available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. In addition, the proposed deletion of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will further conform the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity offerings, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Similarly, confirming that the Exchange will not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-GEMX-2024-16 will make clear that the Exchange does not offer, and will not proceed with implementing, those services.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) because it does not unfairly discriminate among market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers effective September 30, 2026, after 90-days' notice to existing customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The proposed removal of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will apply uniformly and merely conforms the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity services, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Finally, the POD offering that the Exchange proposes to discontinue was never implemented or offered to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not change the terms on which any market participant may
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 proposal is limited to removing obsolete rule text and related fee provisions for services that have been terminated, will be terminated after notice to affected customers, or were never implemented. Specifically, the proposal would remove rule text relating to certain Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026 after 90-days' notice to existing customers; certain wireless connectivity offerings and related fee and discount provisions that were terminated effective August 31, 2025; and POD, an offering that was never implemented by the Exchange. Because the proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, access requirement, or differential treatment, it will not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition.
The proposal will not burden intramarket competition because it will apply uniformly to all market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers after 90-days' notice, are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The wireless connectivity offerings and related provisions will be removed uniformly because the underlying services were previously terminated. And the POD offering was never made available to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not alter the competitive position of any market participant or change the terms on which any participant may obtain any currently available Exchange service.
The proposal will not burden intermarket competition because it does not affect the ability of other exchanges, vendors, or market participants to offer, obtain, or compete with respect to market data connectivity, order entry, or colocation-related services. Rather, the proposal merely conforms the Exchange's rulebook to the current availability of its services and removes obsolete provisions that no longer reflect operative offerings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Form ADV” (17 CFR 279.1). Form ADV is the investment adviser registration form and exempt reporting adviser reporting form filed electronically with the Commission pursuant to rules 203-1 (17 CFR 275.203-1), 204-1 (17 CFR 275.204-1)
The information collected provides the Commission with knowledge about the adviser, its business, its conflicts of interest and personnel. The Commission uses the information to determine eligibility for registration with the Commission and to manage its regulatory, examination, and enforcement programs. Part 1 of Form ADV contains information used primarily by the Commission staff and Part 2 is the client brochure. Part 3 requires registered investment advisers that offer services to retail investors to prepare and file with the Commission a relationship summary.
The Commission recently updated the data sources and methodology that it generally uses for calculating occupational hourly rates that are used in estimating certain PRA burdens.
Respondents to this information collection are investment advisers registered with the Commission or applying for registration with the Commission and exempt reporting advisers. Our latest data indicate that there were approximately 16,442 advisers registered with the Commission and 6,389 exempt reporting advisers as of December 31, 2025. The Commission estimates that the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden of the collection of information for each respondent is 10.85 hours. Based on this figure, the Commission estimates a total annual burden of 251,851.53 hours for this collection of information.
This collection of information is found at 17 CFR 279.1, and is mandatory.
The information collected pursuant to Form ADV are filings with the Commission. These disclosures are not kept confidential and must be preserved until at least three years after termination of the enterprise.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 20.6 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors) to eliminate the requirement regarding the maintenance of a minimum roster of representatives eligible to serve on the Exchange's Obvious Error Panel. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 20.6 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors) to simplify the representative requirement for the Obvious Error Panel. Specifically, as described below, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement regarding the maintenance of a minimum roster of representatives eligible to serve on the Exchange's Obvious Error Panel to avoid an unnecessary administrative burden on the Exchange and its Options Members.
Under Rule 20.6(l), an Options Member affected by a determination made under Rule 20.6 may request review by an Obvious Error Panel. Under Rule 20.6(l)(1), each Obvious Error Panel must be comprised of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (“CRO”), or a designee of the CRO; one representative of an Options Member engaged in market making (any such representative, a “MM Representative”); and two representatives of Options Members that satisfy specified criteria designed to ensure that such representatives are not engaged principally in options market making (any such representative, a “Non-MM Representative”).
Under current Rule 20.6(l)(2), the Exchange must designate at least ten MM Representatives and at least ten Non-MM Representatives to be called upon to serve on the Obvious Error Panel as needed. That rule further provides that an Obvious Error Panel may not include a person affiliated with a party to the trade in question and that, to the extent reasonably possible, the Exchange must call upon designated representatives to participate on panels on an equally frequent basis.
The Exchange believes that the requirement to designate at least ten MM Representatives and at least ten Non-MM Representatives to be called upon to serve on the Obvious Error Panel is unnecessarily burdensome to both the Exchange and the representatives. The Exchange believes that a mandatory roster of twenty or more designated representatives is larger than necessary to administer the appeals process effectively and imposes avoidable administrative burdens on both the Exchange and its Options Members. Maintaining such a roster requires the Exchange to identify, solicit, qualify, designate, track, and periodically refresh a substantial number of representatives, even though only three industry representatives serve on a particular panel, and appeals occur only periodically and infrequently.
The Exchange believes that Rule 20.6, as amended, will facilitate a more efficient administration of the appeal process while retaining the requirement of having both MM Representatives and Non-MM Representatives on the panel. The proposed amendment will streamline the appeal process by removing the unnecessary burden of maintaining an active list of at least twenty representatives to serve on an Obvious Error Panel. The Exchange does not believe it is necessary to designate such a large number of representatives because the composition of each Obvious Error Panel will remain unchanged, as each panel will continue to include one MM Representative and two Non-MM Representatives, in addition to the CRO or the CRO's designee. The Exchange believes this composition provides a proper balance of competing interests and helps ensure regulatory fairness when resolving trade disputes.
The proposal will not alter the eligibility criteria for Non-MM Representatives. In addition, Rule 20.6(l)2) will retain the requirements that an Obvious Error Panel may not include a person affiliated with a party to the trade in question and that, to the extent reasonably possible, the Exchange must call upon designated representatives to participate on panels on an equally frequent basis. These provisions will continue to promote impartiality and equitable participation in the appeal process.
The Exchange expects to continue designating a sufficient number of qualified MM Representatives and Non-MM Representatives to convene panels promptly, taking into account representative availability, potential conflicts, and the applicable review timeframes. Eliminating the fixed minimum roster size will provide the Exchange flexibility to maintain a roster appropriately sized to its operational needs without affecting the composition, independence, or substantive authority of the Obvious Error Panel.
The Exchange notes that the proposed approach is consistent with the rules of other national securities exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with 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 amendment to eliminate the requirement regarding the maintenance of a minimum roster of representatives eligible to serve on the Exchange's Obvious Error Panel will make the administration of the appeal process more efficient by reducing an unnecessary numerical condition while preserving the provisions governing
The Exchange does not believe that requiring a roster of at least twenty designated representatives is necessary to ensure fair review. Rather, fairness is achieved through the composition of the panel that hears the appeal, the qualifications and independence of its representatives, and the substantive and procedural protections in Rule 20.6. The proposed change also will serve to avoid wasting Options Member and Exchange resources on maintaining an excessive list of Options Member representatives.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal's consistency with the rules of Nasdaq and its affiliated options exchanges supports the conclusion that the fixed roster requirement is not necessary to protect investors or ensure fair review. Those exchanges rely on panel-composition safeguards similar to those that will remain in Rule 20.6, but do not require the maintenance of a roster of at least ten market-maker and ten non-market-maker representatives.
Finally, the proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination. Rather, the proposal relates only to the Exchange's administrative requirements for maintaining a roster of eligible representatives and will apply uniformly to all Options Members and all appeals under Rule 20.6. The Exchange will continue to maintain a roster of qualified representatives appropriately sized to its operational needs and will continue to select representatives in accordance with the rule's objective criteria and, to the extent reasonably possible, call upon designated representatives on an equally frequent basis.
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. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intramarket burden on competition because the proposed change will apply uniformly to all Members and will not affect any Member's ability to request or obtain review of an obvious error determination. Further, the proposal will not impact the fairness or impartiality of the appeal process. The Exchange will continue to appoint qualified individuals to serve on the Obvious Error Panel and to administer the appeals process in a fair and consistent manner, and all similarly situated parties will continue to have access to the same appeal procedures and protections under Rule 20.6. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition because the proposal relates solely to the Exchange's internal administration of the Obvious Error Panel and does not affect the standards for determining whether a transaction is erroneous, the relief available for market participants, the rights or obligations of any Member, the Exchange's trading functionality or the ability of Members to compete on the Exchange or across markets.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering that was previously proposed but not implemented.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to (1) remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering
First, the Exchange proposes to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings set forth in Rule General 8, Section 1(b), including their associated fees and explanatory language. These offerings consist of market data connectivity to the Nasdaq Data Center for SIAC, CTS/CQS, OpenBook Ultra, and ArcaBook Multicast delivered via a fiber optic network. The Exchange is terminating these offerings effective September 30, 2026, because they are subscribed to by fewer than three customers, these offerings are available from vendors other than the Exchange, and the Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice that the offerings will terminate on that date. The Exchange also proposes to remove the related explanatory language providing, in general, that pricing is for connectivity only, is similar to connectivity fees imposed by other vendors, is generally based on the amount of bandwidth needed to accommodate a particular feed, and that the Exchange is not the exclusive method to obtain market data connectivity.
Second, the Exchange proposes to further amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove the multicast market data feeds delivered to the Nasdaq Data Center via a wireless network, including microwave or millimeter wave connectivity. The specific wireless connectivity offerings being removed are NYSE Equities (Arca Integrated), NYSE Equities (NYSE Integrated), BATS Multicast PITCH for BZX and BYX, Direct EDGE Depth of Book for EDGA and EDGX, CME Multicast Total, CME Equities Futures Data Only, CME Fixed Income Futures Data Only, and CME Metals Futures Data Only. The Exchange also proposes to remove from subparagraph (b) of Rule General 8 the associated installation fees, recurring monthly fees, as well as the associated volume-based discount language applicable to microwave or millimeter wave wireless subscriptions.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to discontinue the POD offering described in SR-ISE-2024-24. In that filing, the Exchange proposed to launch POD as a managed colocation solution under which applications would be deployed on managed infrastructure in the form of virtual or dedicated servers in the colocation space. The Exchange stated in SR-ISE-2024-24 that implementation of the POD offering would coincide with a subsequent fee filing establishing applicable fees. The Exchange did not file fees for POD and did not otherwise offer the POD services proposed in SR-ISE-2024-24. The offering did not attract sufficient demand and therefore never fully materialized. The Exchange now proposes to discontinue the offering and not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-ISE-2024-24.
The proposed changes are designed to update the rulebook to eliminate products or services that are no longer offered, are being terminated, or were never implemented. The proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, or obligation, and it does not affect the availability of any currently offered Exchange service. The proposal also would thus update the Exchange's rulebook, enhance its clarity, and facilitate its use.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that the Exchange's rules accurately reflect the connectivity services that are currently available. Removing obsolete rule text relating to the Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026, will reduce potential confusion and improve the clarity and accuracy of the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice of the termination, the offerings are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds are available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. In addition, the proposed deletion of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will further conform the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity offerings, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Similarly, confirming that the Exchange will not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-ISE-2024-24 will make clear that the Exchange does not offer, and will not proceed with implementing, those services.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) because it does not unfairly discriminate among market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers effective September 30, 2026, after 90-days' notice to existing customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The proposed removal of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will apply uniformly and merely conforms the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity services, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Finally, the POD offering that the Exchange proposes to discontinue was never implemented or offered to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not change the terms on which any market participant may obtain any currently available Exchange service. Rather, the proposal would enhance the transparency and accuracy of the Exchange's rulebook by ensuring that the offerings reflected in the rulebook are currently available or otherwise accurately described.
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 proposal is limited to removing obsolete rule text and related fee provisions for services that have been terminated, will be terminated after notice to affected customers, or were never implemented. Specifically, the proposal would remove rule text relating to certain Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026 after 90-days' notice to existing customers; certain wireless connectivity offerings and related fee and discount provisions that were terminated effective August 31, 2025; and POD, an offering that was never implemented by the Exchange. Because the proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, access requirement, or differential treatment, it will not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition.
The proposal will not burden intramarket competition because it will apply uniformly to all market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers after 90-days' notice, are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The wireless connectivity offerings and related provisions will be removed uniformly because the underlying services were previously terminated. And the POD offering was never made available to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not alter the competitive position of any market participant or change the terms on which any participant may obtain any currently available Exchange service.
The proposal will not burden intermarket competition because it does not affect the ability of other exchanges, vendors, or market participants to offer, obtain, or compete with respect to market data connectivity, order entry, or colocation-related services. Rather, the proposal merely conforms the Exchange's rulebook to the current availability of its services and removes obsolete provisions that no longer reflect operative offerings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 22, 2026, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
LCH SA is a clearing agency registered with the Commission. Through its CDSClear business unit, LCH SA provides central counterparty (“CCP”) services for security-based swaps, including credit default swaps (“CDS”) and options on CDS. LCH SA is an affiliate of LCH, Ltd, through common ownership by LCH Group Holdings Limited (“LCH Group”). LCH SA's ultimate parent company is London Stock Exchange Group.
As a CCP, LCH SA is exposed to certain risks, including liquidity risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that LCH SA will not have enough liquid financial resources to meet its financial obligations. LCH SA has adopted the Liquidity Plan to set out the specific principles and procedures for liquidity management that govern its operations as a clearing agency, including how it will ensure that systems and processes are in place to facilitate effective management of liquidity risk.
The Liquidity Plan describes (i) the objectives of the Liquidity Plan; (ii) the roles and responsibilities of various LCH SA personnel in liquidity management; (iii) the sources and uses of LCH SA's liquidity; (iv) how LCH SA uses stress testing in monitoring and determining its liquidity needs; and (v) how LCH SA monitors and manages its liquidity needs.
The objectives of the Liquidity Plan are to ensure: (i) the effective management of liquidity by adhering to the appropriate governance structure to manage liquidity risk, including reporting lines and accountabilities; (ii) the liquidity adequacy of LCH SA at all times in accordance with policies set by the appropriate governance authority and monitored and reported by LCH SA Risk Department; (iii) that liquidity management and resources are aligned with LCH SA operational requirements to meet payment obligations as they fall due under business as usual and stressed liquidity conditions; (iv) effective liquidity risk identification and escalation within Collateral and Liquidity Management (“CaLM”) and the other departments within LCH SA identified in the Liquidity Plan; and (v) that systems and processes are in place to facilitate effective management of liquidity risk.
Section 2 of the Liquidity Plan sets out the roles and responsibilities within LCH SA for compliance with the Liquidity Plan. The Liquidity Plan provides that: (i) the LCH SA Head of CaLM (or delegate) is responsible for, among other things, maintaining the Liquidity Plan, overseeing the portfolio management function, LCH SA's overall liquidity position, and adherence to the Liquidity Plan and relevant policies; (ii) CaLM Front Office, comprised of trading personnel, is responsible for, among other things, day-to-day investment activities, intraday liquidity management and monitoring, and oversight of asset encumbrance requirements including for pledged assets and Futures Commission Merchant (“FCM”) non-cash collateral; (iii) Second Line CaLM Risk sets liquidity risk limits, enforces liquidity risk limits and escalates limit breaches, develops and enhances the liquidity risk management framework, and identifies, measures, monitors, and reports liquidity risks, among other responsibilities; (iv) Collateral Operations is responsible for, among other things, the operational and control processes related to intraday liquidity flows and performs intraday monitoring of CaLM investment activity; and (v) CaLM Middle Office is responsible for mark-to-market of the CaLM SA portfolio and formal reporting of CaLM investment activity.
As described in Section 4 of the Liquidity Plan, CaLM First Line Risk also is responsible for the daily pricing of the liquid assets and investment portfolio. Regular reporting is distributed by CaLM Middle Office to relevant stakeholders through downstream systems, including by distributing a CaLM Investment Report on a daily and monthly basis. Second Line CaLM Risk conducts the monitoring and reporting of these activities, as described immediately above.
Finally, the LCH SA Chief Risk Officer is responsible for taking and deciding any relevant actions during a liquidity event.
The Liquidity Plan identifies the different sources and availability of liquidity, including: (i) cash posted by members to meet margin requirements;
Beyond these primary sources, the Liquidity Plan specifies that available liquidity resources include: (i) maturing transactions from reverse repo and overnight unsecured investments; (ii) sale of portfolio of highly liquid assets; (iii) maturity and/or redemption of on-demand investments; (iv) repo of highly liquid securities; (v) borrowing facilities; (vi) foreign exchange (“FX”) funding transactions; and (vii) access to central bank liquidity.
The Liquidity Plan also identifies potential uses of liquidity which could impact the liquidity resources available to meet liquidity requirements, including: (i) cash tied in investment activities which cannot be freed in time to meet requirements; (ii) disruption in the cash bond/repo market which delays mobilization of a defaulted clearing member's non-cash collateral; (iii) payment flow delays; (iv) credit lines with an International Central Securities Depository (“ICSD”) being reduced or not available; and (v) cash/non-cash that is provided for interoperability arrangement purposes.
To mitigate such potential draws on liquidity, the Liquidity Plan sets out additional methods to retain liquidity within LCH SA. These include: (i) increasing the notice period required for clearing members to substitute non-cash collateral for cash collateral; (ii) using intraday liquidity available at Central Securities Depositories (“CSDs”); (iii) prioritizing the return of non-cash over cash collateral; (iv) applying caps on pledge amounts and non-Euro securities; (v) requiring clearing members to post a minimum amount of cash collateral; and (vi) making extraordinary margin calls if the Liquidity Coverage Ratio falls below specified thresholds.
The Liquidity Plan describes how LCH SA conducts stress testing of its liquidity position. This includes daily liquidity stress testing for Cover 2 default by currency; intraday Cover 2 default liquidity stress testing when LCH SA has scheduled obligations to pay; and at least a 5-day forward looking Cover 2 default liquidity stress test. LCH SA also conducts additional stress testing using scenarios that consider: liquidity following a Cover 2 default; stresses at Euronext Clearing liquidity stress testing; and compliance with the Commission's specific liquidity requirements.
In addition, the Liquidity Plan also describes LCH SA's liquidity reverse stress scenarios. These scenarios model: (i) reductions in cash margin to generate a liquidity deficit; (ii) switches to non-liquid resources; (iii) rating downgrades of Euro zone peripheral and core countries; (iv) increased outflows due to mark-to-market moves of assets; (v) multiple defaults of low credit worthiness members; (vi) Euronext Clearing variation margins; (vii) increases in the maturity of securities from margin collateral and settlement of repo transactions; and (viii) combined behavioral and macroeconomic scenarios.
The Liquidity Plan also describes how LCH SA monitors and manages its liquidity needs on an ongoing basis. With respect to monitoring, as noted above, Second Line CaLM Risk sets liquidity risk limits and monitors, controls, and reports the liquidity risk of LCH SA to CaLM on a daily basis. Second Line CaLM risk also maintains and runs various stress scenarios and monitors the largest stress loss against the legal entity capital and available liquidity resources.
With respect to management of liquidity needs, LCH SA manages these according to whether they relate to business-as-usual operations or a clearing member default. Operational liquidity needs are those needs arising from LCH SA's operations, not related to a clearing member's default. Operational liquidity needs include repayment of excess cash collateral to members; substitution of cash collateral upon member request; provision of liquidity to facilitate settlement (including fails); potential planned Default Fund reductions; overall reductions in Initial Margin and thus cash posted for margin coverage; and Euronext Clearing variation margin outflows. Default-related liquidity needs are those arising from the default of a clearing member.
As described in the Liquidity Plan, LCH SA manages operational liquidity needs by first monitoring daily liquidity flows to determine where a need may arise in day-to-day operations. Specifically, the Liquidity Plan specifies that Collateral Operations monitors daily liquidity flows, with the 9:30 a.m. observation identified as the most accurate indicator of daily operational liquidity requirements since all margin returns to members occur in the morning. The Liquidity Plan next describes various actions that LCH SA can take to generate intraday liquidity for operational needs, such as using Euro cash collateral and pledging Euro non-cash securities to the Banque de France 3G credit line to obtain cash, and, as a last resort, uncommitted credit lines. Finally. the Liquidity Plan describes how LCH SA would replenish any cash used to meet operational liquidity needs, which LCH SA would expect to do so once settlement is completed and/or the operational issue generating the need is resolved.
The second major source of liquidity needs, default liquidity, includes LCH SA's needs from fulfilment of the settlement obligations of a defaulted clearing member, such as posting of variation margins to non-defaulting members on positions held by a defaulted clearing. The Liquidity Plan describes various actions that LCH SA can take to generate intraday liquidity in a default. As with operational liquidity needs, these actions include using Euro cash collateral and pledging Euro non-cash securities to the Banque de France 3G credit line to obtain cash, and, as a last resort, uncommitted credit lines.
The Liquidity Plan also describes how LCH SA would replenish any cash used to meet default liquidity needs, which LCH SA would expect to do using the waterfall of resources available under its rules to cover default losses. For example, to complete settlement of cleared contracts, LCH SA would source the required liquidity from the pool of cash posted by members (margin and default fund contributions), by utilizing bonds under the cleared contract or from the non-cash collateral pool to raise liquidity through the Banque de France 3G credit line, or repo transactions. The bond acquired would then be sold in the auction and the proceeds used to replenish liquidity. If the bond is sold at a lower value than the cash paid under the repo, LCH SA could cover the resulting mark-to-market loss using the resources set out in its default waterfall.
Finally, as part of its ongoing management of its liquidity needs, LCH SA regularly tests the availability of liquidity and conducts due diligence on its liquidity providers. As described in the Liquidity Plan, LCH SA's CaLM team undertakes “War Games” testing to ensure that assumptions around activities used in stressed environments to raise liquidity are realistic. CaLM also tests, with each counterparty that provides liquidity to LCH SA, its ability to access the liquidity resources. The Liquidity Plan also requires LCH SA to
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to LCH SA. More specifically, for the reasons given below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of LCH SA be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.
The Liquidity Plan promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by ensuring that LCH SA maintains sufficient liquidity resources to meet its settlement obligations. The Liquidity Plan does so by identifying and prioritizing multiple sources of liquidity to facilitate settlement, including cash margin posted by members, Default Fund contributions, and LCH SA's own capital, while also establishing detailed procedures for generating additional liquidity through the Banque de France 3G credit line, bilateral and triparty repo transactions, and central bank facilities. The Liquidity Plan addresses liquidity needed for settlement continuity as part of LCH SA's daily operations. The Liquidity Plan addresses settlement continuity in default scenarios as well, providing that LCH SA will source required liquidity from the pool of cash posted by members, by utilizing bonds under cleared contracts, or from the non-cash collateral pool, thereby ensuring that settlement obligations of a defaulted clearing member can be fulfilled without disruption to the broader clearance and settlement process. These provisions will help ensure that LCH SA has sufficient liquidity to complete settlement in its business-as-usual operations, as well as during a default of a clearing member, thereby helping ensure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
The Liquidity Plan further describes how LCH SA will monitor and manage its liquidity resources and needs. For example, Collateral Operations monitors daily liquidity flows on a day-to-day basis, with the 9:30 a.m. observation identified as the most accurate indicator of daily operational liquidity requirements, ensuring that margin returns to members are processed accurately and promptly each morning. LCH SA also conducts stress tests of its liquidity position, which help ensure that LCH SA maintains adequate liquidity to complete settlement even in stressed market conditions. Finally, the Plan's requirement that LCH SA undertake due diligence on each of its liquidity providers and that CaLM conduct annual “War Games” testing with each liquidity provider helps ensures that the procedures and resources necessary to safeguard member assets and meet settlement obligations remain operationally viable under both normal and stressed market conditions. These provisions will help ensure that LCH SA is able to monitor and manage its liquidity needs, and access liquidity to satisfy those needs, thereby helping ensure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(v) requires that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(2)(v).
Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(7) requires, among other things, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by the covered clearing agency, including measuring, monitoring, and
The Liquidity Plan is consistent with this requirement because it establishes a comprehensive framework for measuring, monitoring, and managing liquidity risk on an ongoing and timely basis. The Liquidity Plan requires daily liquidity stress testing for Cover 2 default by currency, at least a 5-day forward looking liquidity stress test, and liquidity assessments conducted daily at an aggregated level across all material currencies, ensuring continuous measurement and monitoring of LCH SA's liquidity position. With respect to intraday liquidity, the Liquidity Plan describes the resources that LCH SA would use to fulfill needs, assigns CaLM Front Office direct responsibility for intraday liquidity management and monitoring, and requires Collateral Operations to perform intraday monitoring of investment activity and daily liquidity flows. Second Line CaLM Risk further supports these efforts by setting and enforcing liquidity risk limits and escalating limit breaches on an ongoing basis. The Liquidity Plan also details how LCH SA manages its operational and default liquidity risks, including by identifying the needs associated with daily operations and a default, the sources that LCH SA uses to satisfy its liquidity needs, and how LCH SA would replenish its liquidity resources. Together, these provisions would help LCH SA to measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk, its settlement and funding flows, and its use of intraday liquidity, consistent with Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).
Accordingly, the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(7).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
August 18, 2026.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering that was previously proposed but not implemented.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data offerings and certain discontinued wireless connectivity services, and (2) discontinue a certain Proximity-On-Demand (“POD”) offering
First, the Exchange proposes to remove certain fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings set forth in Rule General 8, Section 1(b), including their associated fees and explanatory language. These offerings consist of market data connectivity to the Nasdaq Data Center for SIAC, CTS/CQS, OpenBook Ultra, and ArcaBook Multicast delivered via a fiber optic network. The Exchange is terminating these offerings effective September 30, 2026, because they are subscribed to by fewer than three customers, these offerings are available from vendors other than the Exchange, and the Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice that the offerings will terminate on that date. The Exchange also proposes to remove the related explanatory language providing, in general, that pricing is for connectivity only, is similar to connectivity fees imposed by other vendors, is generally based on the amount of bandwidth needed to accommodate a particular feed, and that the Exchange is not the exclusive method to obtain market data connectivity.
Second, the Exchange proposes to further amend Rule General 8, Section 1(b) to remove the multicast market data feeds delivered to the Nasdaq Data Center via a wireless network, including microwave or millimeter wave connectivity. The specific wireless connectivity offerings being removed are NYSE Equities (Arca Integrated), NYSE Equities (NYSE Integrated), BATS Multicast PITCH for BZX and BYX, Direct EDGE Depth of Book for EDGA and EDGX, CME Multicast Total, CME Equities Futures Data Only, CME Fixed Income Futures Data Only, and CME Metals Futures Data Only. The Exchange also proposes to remove from subparagraph (b) of Rule General 8 the associated installation fees, recurring monthly fees, as well as the associated volume-based discount language applicable to microwave or millimeter wave wireless subscriptions.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to discontinue the POD offering described in SR-MRX-2024-19. In that filing, the Exchange proposed to launch POD as a managed colocation solution under which applications would be deployed on managed infrastructure in the form of virtual or dedicated servers in the colocation space. The Exchange stated in SR-MRX-2024-19 that implementation of the POD offering would coincide with a subsequent fee filing establishing applicable fees. The Exchange did not file fees for POD and did not otherwise offer the POD services proposed in SR-MRX-2024-19. The offering did not attract sufficient demand and therefore never fully materialized. The Exchange now proposes to discontinue the offering and not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-MRX-2024-19.
The proposed changes are designed to update the rulebook to eliminate products or services that are no longer offered, are being terminated, or were never implemented. The proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, or obligation, and it does not affect the availability of any currently offered Exchange service. The proposal also would thus update the Exchange's rulebook, enhance its clarity, and facilitate its use.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that the Exchange's rules accurately reflect the connectivity services that are currently available. Removing obsolete rule text relating to the Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026, will reduce potential confusion and improve the clarity and accuracy of the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange has provided existing customers with 90-days' notice of the termination, the offerings are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds are available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. In addition, the proposed deletion of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will further conform the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity offerings, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Similarly, confirming that the Exchange will not proceed with implementation of POD as described in SR-MRX-2024-19 will make clear that the Exchange does not offer, and will not proceed with implementing, those services.
The proposal is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) because it does not unfairly discriminate among market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers effective September 30, 2026, after 90-days' notice to existing customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The proposed removal of certain wireless offerings, including related fee and discount provisions, will apply uniformly and merely conforms the rulebook to the termination of those wireless connectivity services, which terminated effective August 31, 2025. Finally, the POD offering that the Exchange proposes to discontinue was never implemented or offered to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not change the terms on which any market participant may obtain any currently available Exchange service. Rather, the proposal would enhance the transparency and accuracy of the Exchange's rulebook by ensuring that the offerings reflected in the rulebook are currently available or otherwise accurately described.
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 proposal is limited to removing obsolete rule text and related fee provisions for services that have been terminated, will be terminated after notice to affected customers, or were never implemented. Specifically, the proposal would remove rule text relating to certain Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings that will terminate effective September 30, 2026 after 90-days' notice to existing customers; certain wireless connectivity offerings and related fee and discount provisions that were terminated effective August 31, 2025; and POD, an offering that was never implemented by the Exchange. Because the proposal does not introduce any new service, fee, access requirement, or differential treatment, it will not impose any burden on intermarket or intramarket competition.
The proposal will not burden intramarket competition because it will apply uniformly to all market participants. The Rule General 8, Section 1(b) fiber optic-delivered market data connectivity offerings will terminate for all customers after 90-days' notice, are used by fewer than three customers, and the relevant feeds remain available from third-party vendors other than the Exchange. The wireless connectivity offerings and related provisions will be removed uniformly because the underlying services were previously terminated. And the POD offering was never made available to any market participant. Accordingly, the proposal would not alter the competitive position of any market participant or change the terms on which any participant may obtain any currently available Exchange service.
The proposal will not burden intermarket competition because it does not affect the ability of other exchanges, vendors, or market participants to offer, obtain, or compete with respect to market data connectivity, order entry, or colocation-related services. Rather, the proposal merely conforms the Exchange's rulebook to the current availability of its services and removes obsolete provisions that no longer reflect operative offerings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the state of Illinois dated August 18, 2026.
Incident: Severe Storms.
Issued on August 18, 2026.
Shaquille Lewis, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21790B and for economic injury is 217910.
The states which received an SBA Administrative declaration are Illinois, Indiana.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves aeronautical information detailing the physical description and operational status of all components of the National Airspace System (NAS). The information to be collected will be used to update government, military, and private aeronautical databases, charts, publications, flight management systems, and in-flight tracking products.
Written comments should be submitted by October 20, 2026.
Please send written comments:
John Graybill by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
On May 19, 2026, the FAA published a notice seeking public comments on draft FAA Order 5100.38E. The comment period for the notice was scheduled to end on August 17, 2026. The FAA received a request to extend the comment period. The FAA is extending the comment period for the May 19, 2026, notice by 14 days.
The comment period for the notice published on May 19, 2026, at 91 FR 29247, is extended from August 17, 2026 to August 31, 2026.
You can obtain an electronic copy of the draft FAA Order 5100-38E from the FAA's website at
•
•
•
•
Jesse Carriger, Acting Manager, Financial Assistance Division, Office of Airports Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 267-9590 or
On May 19, 2026, the FAA published a notice in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a new collection of information.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval to conduct research on safety-related aspects of interactions with portable electronic device integration systems that allow access to smartphone applications through the vehicles built-in display. A
Comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Jeffrey Dressel Office of Vehicle Safety Research, Human Factors/Engineering Integration Division NSR-310, West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590;
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This research consists of two parts. Part I consists of an evaluation method called an “occlusion study” at Westat facilities in the Washington DC area. In this part, 24 participants per system (across up to 3 vehicles, for a total of up to 56 participants) will perform 6-9 standardized tasks while wearing special electronic goggles. These goggles automatically switch between clear and blocked views every 1.5 seconds, simulating how drivers normally shift their gaze between looking at the road and looking at the vehicle's displays. Before testing, participants will receive thorough training on each task. They will then perform each task five times while wearing the goggles per the testing procedures outlined in the Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. Researchers will measure how long participants need to see the display to complete each task (called “Total Shutter Open Time” or TSOT), document any mistakes made during the tasks, record how participants recover from these mistakes, and gather feedback about whether the tasks are reasonable to perform while driving. Participants will be provided a $120 honorarium upon completion of Part I.
Part II consists of a closed-course track (CCT) evaluation conducted at Utah Motorsports Campus near Salt Lake City with 72 participants. Due to the cost of missing a study session, participants will be overbooked for each study session, meaning that two participants will be invited to the same study session but only one participant will complete the study. Both will be compensated at the same rate ($120). The reason for using the overbooking strategy is because the cost of recruiting more participants is much less expensive than the cost of missing one session on the closed course track. This part will examine a subset of the tasks from Part I in actual driving conditions on a 0.84-mile stretch on a closed course tack (CCT). Participants will drive
For both parts, participants will complete questionnaires about their background, driving experience, and familiarity with these interfaces. The collected data will be analyzed to evaluate whether these interfaces meet NHTSA's guidelines for minimizing driver distraction and to assess their effects on driving safety. The findings will help inform future safety guidelines and policy decisions regarding in-vehicle portable device interfaces.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
a.
b.
c.
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(6)
(7)
(8)
a.
b.
c.
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
(10)
a.
b.
c.
(11)
A
In his comment Bob Scopatz supported this NHTSA collection effort and stated that, “The information gathered will have value for regulating the in-vehicle connected devices and for OEMs designing the next generation of in-vehicle systems.”
NHTSA appreciates the public support for research on this topic.
The following excerpt summarizes the key points submitted by Consumer Reports (CR) in their comment for NHTSA's consideration; all cited references have been removed for brevity. To facilitate a clear mapping of the agency's response to the specific issues raised, the points are numbered to correspond with the numbered responses below.
1. CR is concerned that this study, would mostly focus on whether these systems are simply conforming to existing NHTSA driver distraction Guidelines instead of exploring questions regarding the nature of distraction as it relates to these interfaces. They stated that it might be more valuable to understand what specific aspects of these interfaces are actually driving distraction, and identify precisely where these systems break down for the user and how drivers might adapt to various interface designs.
2. CR also suggested that it may be worth exploring the role of more dynamic approaches to manage access to certain functions, as well as shaping how tasks are paced and completed, within the context of this research. They stated that drivers in real-world scenarios often self-pace their interactions or break tasks into smaller segments to manage attentional demands.
NHTSA appreciates CR's feedback on this topic. While the 60-day notice provides a high-level summary, several of CR's suggestions will be addressed in the full research and analysis plan. Regarding specific points:
1. NHTSA acknowledges the importance of capturing the nature of distraction with regard to these interfaces. Comparison to the existing NHTSA distraction Guidelines is one portion of this data collection; however, the study is designed to go beyond conformity to explore the underlying mechanisms of distraction. Utilizing the occlusion method in Part I with prescribed pacing allows for an understanding of task time and visual demand for a larger number of tasks across both smartphone mirroring systems and native OEM systems. Part II takes place on a closed course to examine driver eye glance behavior, cognitive workload, and driving performance measures to understand the potential impacts of performing various self-paced tasks across both of these interfaces. This self-paced environment allows for the observation of how users adapt their behavior to various interface designs.
2. NHTSA acknowledges that gathering data on how drivers self-pace while completing non-driving related tasks is important. In Part II, participants will complete various tasks at their own pace while driving on the closed course to gather more naturalistic interactions with the interfaces. This allows data to be collected that reflects how individuals segment tasks and manage attentional demands in real-time. For experimenter and participant safety, interactions with personal smartphone devices will not be included as part of this study. Participants will be trained on how to complete the non-driving related task, however, for any errors made, we will identify the specific error and sequence of recovery steps. Analyzing these sequences allows us to better understand the common errors and the effectiveness of various error recovery strategies. Furthermore, Part II will include some of the feature lockouts and delays that are built into the interfaces when the vehicle is in motion that are not captured in Part I. This allows us to observe how users navigate these dynamic restrictions and will provide insight into how existing system management affects task pacing and completion.
After thoughtful consideration of all the above comments, NHTSA will ensure that appropriate discussion of findings relevant to the broad nature of distraction and to self-pacing of task performance are included in the final report. These modifications yield no changes in the participant burden estimate from that which was published in the 60-day notice.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of a modified matching program.
Pursuant to section 552a(e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act, notice is hereby given of the conduct of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Disclosure of Information to Federal, State and Local Agencies (DIFSLA) Computer Matching Program. The Louisiana Department of Health is modifying the Computer Matching Agreement to amend the programs administered, and the Louisiana Department of Children and Families will no longer participate in the DIFSLA Program.
Comments on this matching notice must be received no later than 30 days after date of publication in the
Comments may be sent by email to
General questions may be sent to Internal Revenue Service; Privacy, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure; ATTN: Natalie Jackels, 1550 American Blvd., East Bloomington, MN 55425.
The notice of the matching program was last published on 89 FR 52214 (June 21, 2024). Members of the public desiring specific information concerning an ongoing matching activity may request a copy of the applicable computer matching agreement at the address provided above.
(i) A state program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act;
(ii) Medical assistance provided under a state plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act, or subsidies provided under section 1860D-14 of such Act;
(iii) Supplemental security income benefits provided under title XVI of the Social Security Act, and federally administered supplementary payments of the type described in section 1616(a) of such Act (including payments pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(a) of Pub. L. 93-66);
(iv) Any benefits provided under a state plan approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act (as those titles apply to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands);
(v) Unemployment compensation provided under a state law described in section 3304 of the IRC;
(vi) Assistance provided under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008;
(vii) State-administered supplementary payments of the type
(viii)(I) Any needs-based pension provided under chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code, or under any other law administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
(viii)(II) parents' dependency and indemnity compensation provided under section 1315 of title 38, United States Code;
(viii)(III) Health-care services furnished under sections 1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b) of such title.
IRS will extract return information with respect to unearned income from the Information Returns Master File (IRMF), Treasury/IRS 22.061, as published at 80 FR 54081-082 (September 8, 2015), through the DIFSLA Computer Matching Program. Department of Veterans Affairs will provide to IRS information from the Veterans Benefits Administration—Compensation, Pension and Education, Rehabilitation Records-VA, 58 VA 21/22/28, amended and republished in its entirety at 86 FR 61858 (November 8, 2021); and Veterans Health Administration—Healthcare Eligibility Records, Income Verification Records—VA, 89VA10NB, as published at 73 FR 26192 (May 8, 2008), and updated at 78 FR 76897 (December 19, 2013). Social Security Administration will provide to IRS information from the Office of Systems Requirements—Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits, 60-0103, last fully published at 71 FR 1830 (January 11, 2006), amended at 72 FR 69723 (December 10, 2007), 83 FR 31250-51 (July 3, 2018), and 83 FR 54969 (November 1, 2018).
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of the Treasury 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. The public is invited to submit comments on this request.
Comments should be received on or before September 21, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Spencer W. Clark by emailing
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing the price of $60 for the 2026 Freedom 250 Race Medal.
This product will be available to order beginning August 21, 2026, through September 4, 2026. This product will be made to demand based on orders received or is limited to 15,000 units.
Ann Bailey, Product Management, United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7601.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Final rule.
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which revoked Executive Order 11246. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Labor publishes this final rule to rescind the implementing regulations for Executive Order 11246.
This rule is effective on October 26, 2026.
Kenneth Wolfe, Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
Prior to January 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (the Department) administered and enforced Executive Order (E.O.) 11246, as amended. Issued in 1965, and amended several times in the intervening years, E.O. 11246, and its implementing regulations at 41 CFR part 60-1
On January 21, 2025, E.O. 14173 revoked E.O. 11246. Accordingly, this final rule rescinds the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 and modifies the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures at 41 CFR part 60-30 to remove the E.O. 11246 components. The Department also determined that significant portions of the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework are legally vulnerable because they are inconsistent with constitutional principles, civil rights law, and statutory authority.
Issued in 1965, E.O. 11246 required Federal contracts to include an “Equal Opportunity Clause” barring discrimination and requiring affirmative action in employment based on race, creed, color, and national origin. 30 FR 12319 (Sept. 28, 1965). The Order has been amended in the intervening years: to add sex to contractors' nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations, 32 FR 14303 (Oct. 17, 1967); to exempt certain religious employers with respect to religious nondiscrimination obligations, 67 FR 77141 (Dec. 16, 2002); to prohibit contractors from retaliating against employees who inquire about, disclose, or discuss compensation, 79 FR 20749 (Apr. 11, 2014); and to add sexual orientation and gender identity to contractors' nondiscrimination obligations, 79 FR 42971 (July 23, 2014).
Executive Order 11246 charged the Secretary of Labor with enforcing these nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations and set forth specific sanctions and penalties.
The affirmative action requirements for nonconstruction contractors are found at 41 CFR part 60-2. The Department first codified these regulations in February 1970.
Specifically, nonconstruction contractors with 50 or more employees and a contract of at least $50,000 must develop and maintain a written AAP for each of their establishments. 41 CFR 60-2.1(b). The $50,000 threshold was promulgated in 1968 and has never been updated for inflation.
The regulations set forth in 41 CFR 60-2.12 through 41 CFR 60-2.15 allow contractors to treat minorities in the aggregate, meaning the question is not whether a particular group is underutilized but whether minorities as a whole are underutilized. Likewise, a contractor may generally set placement goals for minorities as a whole so long as there are no substantial disparities in the utilization of certain minority groups. 41 CFR 60-2.16(d).
The affirmative action requirements for construction contractors are found at 41 CFR part 60-4. This part applies to all contractors, subcontractors, contracting agencies, and applicants, as defined in 41 CFR 60-1.3, that are party to or seek to enter Federal and federally assisted construction contracts in excess of $10,000, as well as certain nonconstruction contractors awarding construction contracts. The $10,000 threshold was promulgated in 1978 and has never been updated for inflation.
Instead of “placement goals” that apply to nonconstruction contractors, the Department developed “participation goals” for females and minorities that construction contractors must use as affirmative action benchmarks.
Section 60-4.2 requires all contracting officers and applicants for construction contracts to include a “Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity (Executive Order 11246)” in solicitations for offers and bids on all Federal and federally assisted construction contracts or subcontracts. It further requires covered nonconstruction contractors to include this notice in all construction agreements that are necessary in whole or in part to the performance of the covered nonconstruction contract. The notice includes information on minority and female participation goals applicable to the contractor's workforce. Section 60-4.2 also provides that contracting officers, applicants for construction contracts, and nonconstruction contractors must notify the Director of OFCCP in writing within 10 working days of the award of a covered contract in excess of $10,000.
Section 60-4.3 further requires these entities to incorporate the “Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications (Executive Order 11246)” set forth in 41 CFR 60-4.3 into all nonexempt Federal contracts and subcontracts. These standards describe the female and minority participation goal requirements and outline specific actions covered contractors must take to ensure equal employment opportunity in their work sites. For example, contractors must maintain a working environment free of harassment, intimidation, and coercion at all sites and must establish and maintain a current list of minority and female recruitment sources.
Part 60-1 describes various obligations of contractors pursuant to E.O. 11246. One key provision is 41 CFR 60-1.4, which describes the equal opportunity clause that must be included in government contracts. This section includes the requirement that contractors state in all solicitations or advertisements for employment that applicants will receive consideration without regard to one or more of the protected bases and that contractors notify labor organizations of their obligations under E.O. 11246.
Contractors who meet the requirements set forth in 41 CFR 60-1.7 must file an annual Employer Information Report (EEO-1 Report) with the EEOC. In this report, covered contractors include information on their workforce demographics, including data by job category, sex, race, and ethnicity.
Section 60-1.10 requires the contractor to notify the Department of State and the Director of OFCCP when an employee or potential employee is denied a visa of entry to a country in which or with which it is doing business and it believes the denial was due to one, or more, of the protected bases covered by E.O. 11246.
Section 60-1.12 outlines the record retention requirements that apply to covered contractors under E.O. 11246. These regulations require contractors to preserve any personnel or employment record made or kept for a period of not less than two years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. However, if the contractor has fewer than 150 employees or does not have a contract of at least $150,000, the record retention period is one year from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. This section also provides that the contractor must be able to identify the gender, race and ethnicity of each employee for any record the contractor maintains. Where possible, the contractor must also identify the gender, race, and ethnicity of each applicant or internet Applicant, as defined at 41 CFR 60-1.3.
Section 60-1.20 outlines the investigative methods the Department uses to evaluate a contractor's compliance with the E.O. 11246 regulations. A compliance evaluation may consist of one or any combination of the investigative procedures listed in the regulations,
Part 60-20 sets forth the types of sex discrimination prohibited under E.O. 11246. This part interprets the Order's prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” to bar both disparate treatment and facially neutral employment practices that have a disparate impact on the basis of sex unless justified by business necessity. It addresses a broad range of employment practices, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, compensation, fringe benefits, training, layoffs, and terminations. The regulations specifically address sex-based distinctions related to family status; sex stereotypes; sexual orientation and gender identity; and pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
The regulations at 41 CFR 60-1.26 were first promulgated in 1977 and authorize OFCCP to initiate administrative proceedings within the Department if OFCCP finds that the contractor violated E.O. 11246 or its regulatory requirements. 41 CFR 60-1.26(a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (b)(1). The proceedings are conducted under the supervision of the Solicitor of Labor and are adjudicated by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Administrative Review Board. 41 CFR 60-1.26(a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (b) and 41 CFR 60-30.27-30.30. OFCCP is specifically authorized to seek back pay and other make whole relief for victims of discrimination. 41 CFR 60-1.26(a)(2). And it may refer matters to the DOJ for judicial proceedings. 41 CFR 60-1.26(c). Monetary relief is not referenced in the “Sanctions and Penalties” section of E.O. 11246, which authorizes the Secretary to publish a list of noncompliant contractors; cancel, suspend, or terminate contracts; and debar such contractors. E.O. 11246, sec. 209. The Order also authorizes the Secretary to recommend to the DOJ or the EEOC that appropriate proceedings be instituted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would allow these agencies to seek monetary damages in Federal court for certain violations.
Administrative proceedings brought under 41 CFR 60-1.26 are governed by the procedural regulations at 41 CFR part 60-30. In such proceedings, a Department of Labor ALJ resolves motions, receives evidence and testimony, and holds oral arguments. 41 CFR 60-30.8-30.11 and 60-30.14. At the end of the proceedings, the ALJ “recommend[s] findings, conclusions, and a decision” as to whether the contractor violated the Equal Opportunity Clause and, if so, what sanctions to impose. 41 CFR 60-30.27. Either party may file exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision and order with the Administrative Review Board, which issues a final agency decision based on the record created before the ALJ. 41 CFR 60-30.27-30.30. Part 60-30 also governs administrative proceedings authorized under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503) and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (VEVRAA).
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) are located at 41 CFR part 60-3 and 29 CFR part 1607. UGESP applies to “tests and other selection procedures which are used as a basis for any employment decision.” 29 CFR 1607.2(B). UGESP was jointly adopted by the Department of Labor, the EEOC, the Civil Service Commission, and DOJ. 29 CFR 1607.1. When a test or other selection procedure is determined to have an adverse impact on minorities or women, UGESP requires the contractor to validate the test or procedure and to retain the validation documentation. Under UGESP, each contractor must maintain records and other information for each job sufficient to permit analyses of the impact of its selection procedures on the employment opportunities of people based on race, sex, or ethnic group. Using this information, the contractor and the Department identify and evaluate the contractor's selection procedures for adverse impact. As part of the Department's proposed rescission of the E.O. 11246 regulations, the Department proposed to rescind the 41 CFR part 60-3 regulations, solely to the extent that they were codified in the E.O. 11246 regulations. This action does not impact other agencies' interpretation and application of UGESP, or the existence of UGESP more broadly.
Part 60-40 describes the rules and restrictions the agency has in place for providing public access to its records. Part 60-50 sets forth the Department's interpretations and guidelines for enforcing its religion and national origin discrimination protections.
Lastly, 41 CFR part 60-999 provides information on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved information collections relevant to the regulations. The information in this part is outdated and refers to regulatory provisions that the Department is rescinding through this rulemaking.
On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit
Accordingly, on July 1, 2025, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations at 41 CFR parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4, 60-20, 60-40, and 60-50, all promulgated under the authority of E.O. 11246.
The NPRM also proposed modifying the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures at 41 CFR part 60-30 to remove the E.O. 11246 components. As these procedures also apply to VEVRAA and Section 503, the Department pursued separate rulemakings to incorporate these procedures directly into the VEVRAA and Section 503 implementing regulations.
In addition to E.O. 14173's revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department identified several other reasons for rescinding the regulations, including eliminating legal vulnerabilities related to the affirmative action requirements, improving the efficiency of the Federal contracting process, decreasing employer burden, and providing regulatory certainty to contractors and other stakeholders by aligning the regulations with recent executive orders impacting the Department's enforcement.
On March 26, 2026, President Trump issued E.O. 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” 91 FR 16147 (Mar. 31, 2026). The Order requires Federal contractors to include a clause in their contracts affirming that they will not engage in “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment . . . , contracting . . . , program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity's resources” in connection with the performance of work under the contract, and will furnish records necessary to verify compliance with this nondiscrimination obligation. Noncompliance may result in cancellation or suspension of the contract, and the contractor may be subject to debarment. Executive Order 14398 also directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to promulgate implementing regulations.
As described above, on July 1, 2025, the Department published an NPRM in the
Commenters addressed many topics, including the legal basis for the regulations implementing E.O. 11246, those regulations' consistency with constitutional and statutory civil rights principles, the scope of the Department's enforcement authority, and the potential effects of rescission. After considering the comments received, the Department decided to finalize the rescission of the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 and to modify the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures at 41 CFR part 60-30 to remove the E.O. 11246 components as proposed. As explained below, this determination is based on the following factors: (1) the revocation of E.O. 11246 provides a standalone and sufficient basis for rescinding regulations promulgated solely to implement that Order; (2) the affirmative action regulations conflict with the Constitution's equal protection principles and are inconsistent with Federal civil rights law, including Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) significant portions of the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework—including the affirmative action requirements and the provisions authorizing administrative enforcement and monetary relief under the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations—lack statutory authorization; and (4) rescission will promote more efficient and economical Federal contracting, reduce unnecessary compliance costs, and will not result in increased discrimination. The Department anticipates that rescission will actually encourage fairer, more merit-based employment decision-making consistent with Federal civil rights law.
On January 21, 2025, E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” 90 FR 8633, revoked E.O. 11246. Section 201 of E.O. 11246 delegated authority to the Secretary of Labor to adopt regulations and issue orders to carry out the purposes of that Executive Order and was the sole source of authority for the regulatory framework the Department is rescinding. Authority delegated by the President to the head of a department or agency is “revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part.” 3 U.S.C. 301. Once E.O. 11246 was revoked, the delegation of authority it contained necessarily terminated. As the NPRM explained, since the Department's regulations at 41 CFR parts 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 60-4, 60-20, 60-40, and 60-50 were promulgated solely to implement E.O. 11246, the revocation of E.O. 11246 is an independent and sufficient reason to rescind those regulations. 90 FR 28474. As a result, OFCCP's implementing regulations no longer have operative legal force and cannot be maintained or enforced.
A commenter asserted that revocation of E.O. 11246 is not a sufficient basis for rescinding regulations promulgated under that Order. The commenter, National Nurses United (NNU), argued that Congress's recognition in 42 U.S.C. 2000e-17 that OFCCP may disapprove AAPs “gives [OFCCP's] affirmative action obligations statutory status,” and therefore those regulations cannot be
Further, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) explained, “The wisdom of revoking E.O. 11246 is not at issue, however. The president has already made that decision.” Because the President revoked E.O. 11246, the Department has no authority to restore it or to implement it as if it were still in force. A labor attorney who supported E.O. 11246 agreed that “[f]ollowing the revocation of E.O. 11246, it is clearly appropriate for OFCCP to rescind those rules for which [E.O. 11246] was the sole authority and whose only purpose was to implement the executive order.”
Because the delegation of authority to the Secretary of Labor in section 201 of E.O. 11246 was duly revoked, there is, as the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) commented, “no longer any `illusion of authority' for the regulations.” The American Civil Rights (ACR) Project similarly recognized OFCCP for “undertaking the proper housekeeping of removing the Rescinded Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations now that they are a nullity.”
The Department concludes that the revocation of E.O. 11246 alone provides an independent and sufficient ground for rescinding the regulations. Moreover, as explained in Section III(B) below, even if Congress had conferred statutory status on the affirmative action regulations in parts 60-2 and 60-4, as NNU suggests, those regulations would nonetheless be unconstitutional.
As explained in Section II(B) above, 41 CFR parts 60-2 and 60-4 require covered nonconstruction contractors to establish placement goals to address any underutilization—
In response to the NPRM, numerous commenters addressed the nature and operation of the affirmative action requirements contained in parts 60-2 and 60-4. Many commenters characterized these affirmative action requirements as governmental discrimination that seeks demographic balancing in contractors' workforces. Independent Women, along with more than a hundred commenters participating in a coordinated letter campaign, criticized OFCCP's employment goals as being effectively “quotas.” The joint comment of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Center for Equal Opportunity, and Defending Education (hereinafter collectively referred to as “PLF”) questioned whether regulations authorizing racially preferential contracting policies are even authorized by E.O. 11246. PLF's comment stated: “these regulations essentially require contractors to discriminate until they attain the government's desired demographics[.]” That comment further criticized the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations' underlying assumption that any statistical disparity in workforce composition should be corrected, agreeing with the NPRM that there are many non-discriminatory reasons why a group may be over- or underrepresented in a particular job at a particular employer.
The Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) cited 2024 data showing that the occupations of health care support, education, and office administration support are each between 70% to 85% female. Conversely, the occupations of construction or extraction, architecture, and transportation are each between 79% to 96% male. CRF added that there is no nationwide campaign to discourage women from going into construction. “Instead,” CRF wrote, “a plethora of data is readily available explaining that these sex-based disparities exist because the sexes tend to lean towards pursuing different professions than those of the opposite sex. Regardless of whether the reason for these trends is biological or environmental, the disparities that exist are not a consequence of discrimination, but of individual choices reflected on a macro scale.”
Some commenters, including NNU and Representative Robert C. Scott of Virginia, disagreed with the revocation of E.O. 11246, stressing its continuity with earlier executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in Federal contracting. But the continuity they asserted does not present a fully accurate comparison between E.O. 11246 and its predecessors. Unlike previous nondiscrimination executive orders, E.O. 11246 gave the Secretary of Labor enforcement authority over certain types of discrimination by governmental contractors. As the comment of America First Legal pointed out, as a result of regulations subsequently issued by the Secretary of Labor, E.O. 11246 “transformed the concept of affirmative action from an obligation to eliminate racial discrimination into a requirement to implement a new kind of race-conscious employment.”
Other commenters commended E.O. 11246 for protecting minorities,
NNU disagreed that there could be non-discriminatory reasons for statistical disparities, countering that such disparities reflect “occupational segregation, an active process whereby government policies and employer practices create a concentration of a particular group in a workplace, workforce, industry.” The Department finds NNU's sweeping assertion that occupational disparities must be the product of “active” wrongdoing to be flawed. There is no reason to expect free people making free choices to distribute themselves evenly across every occupation by sex and along racial categories that “are arbitrary or undefined.”
Other commenters defended the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations by denying that race- and sex-based employment goals could encourage race- or sex-based decision-making. For example, one employment attorney asserted that the Department “completely misconstrues” its race-based placement goals, explaining that they are intended only to identify and remove barriers, rather than act as race-based numeric goals. The joint comment of the National Women's Law Center and several other civil rights and worker rights organizations (hereinafter collectively referred to as “NWLC”) similarly argued that “the only requirement is to identify gaps between availability and utilization, and take steps to understand any barriers causing those gaps.” These commenters emphasized that the regulations state that goal-setting requirements may not be used to justify quotas or explicit preferences based on race or sex.
The Department acknowledges that it previously revised the regulations governing nonconstruction contractors to include an express disclaimer that placement goals do not justify quotas or discrimination.
Disclaimers do not alter the underlying premise of the regulations that, absent discrimination, “over time a contractor's workforce, generally, will reflect the gender, racial and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which the contractor recruits and selects,” 41 CFR 60-2.10(a)(1), which, if left unqualified, discounts “innocent causes” that may lead to disparities.
“The inevitable focus on statistics in disparate impact cases could put undue pressure on employers to adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures.”
Although placement and participation goals are not denominated as quotas, they function as numerical targets that contractors must pursue. Contractors were at risk that OFCCP might subject them to intrusive and costly investigations and enforcement proceedings if they failed to make sufficient progress toward meeting their goals. In practical operation, as American First Legal recognized, “the existing regulatory infrastructure requires employers to take into account race and sex” when making employment decisions with the aim of correcting statistical disparities. Put another way, the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 are self-contradictory. In 2000, OFCCP added 41 CFR 60-2.16, which ostensibly prohibits quotas and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, and other protected characteristics. Government Contractors; Affirmative Action Requirements, 60 FR 68022, 68046 (Nov. 13, 2000). Yet, the requirements that form the bulk of parts 60-2 and 60-4 actively induce employers to treat the goals as quotas and to take affirmative action that constitutes discrimination based on race and sex.
Having considered the comments, the Department concludes that the affirmative action requirements at issue extend beyond the removal of barriers to equal employment opportunity. They instead establish a framework of race- and sex-based workforce classification, demographic benchmarking, and numerical goal-setting that requires contractors to engage in sustained race-conscious analysis in employment practices.
Several commenters agreed with the Department that OFCCP's race-based affirmative action regulations raise serious constitutional equal-protection concerns and are vulnerable to legal challenge, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in
Citing
Other commenters responded that the Department misconstrued
The Department agrees that
Under the Constitution, “[g]overnment policies that classify people by race are presumptively invalid.”
Sex-based classifications likewise are “presumptively invalid” and may be sustained only if they satisfy intermediate scrutiny—they must serve an important governmental objective and are substantially related to the achievement of that objective.
The state attorneys general, PLF, America First Legal, and other commenters argued that OFCCP's race-based affirmative action regulations constitute racial classifications that fail strict scrutiny and therefore must be rescinded. No commenter disputed that these regulations either classify individuals on the basis of race for purposes of equal-protection jurisprudence or are subject to strict scrutiny.
The Department concludes that the affirmative action regulations that require contractors to set placement goals where minority underutilization occurs and then make good faith efforts to address that underutilization create racial classifications that trigger strict scrutiny under settled equal-protection principles. Long before
Although some commenters correctly note that 41 CFR 60-2.16(e) disclaims the use of placement goals as “rigid and inflexible quotas,” that disclaimer is beside the point. The relevant inquiry is whether the regulatory scheme encourages, induces, or effectively requires employment decisions because of race.
The placement goal framework in part 60-2 exerts such pressure in at least two ways. First, OFCCP considers a contractor's underutilization of minorities when conducting compliance reviews of contractors.
Courts have consistently recognized that the prospect of government enforcement exerts coercive pressure sufficient to influence regulated conduct.
Second, the regulations require contractors to undertake “good-faith efforts” and other affirmative actions to address minority underutilization. Requirements to take action to meet race-specific employment targets likewise encourage contractors to consider race and therefore trigger strict scrutiny.
The constitutional concerns are even more pronounced with respect to construction contractors' participation goal requirements under part 60-4. Unlike placement goals, there is no prohibition against treating participation goals as inflexible quotas in the regulatory text. To the contrary, construction contractors are expressly “expected to make substantially uniform progress in meeting . . . [their participation] goals.” 41 CFR 60-4.3(a)(4). Section 60-4.2(d)(2) further requires that hours worked by minorities and women be “substantially uniform throughout the length of the contract” and that contractors make good-faith efforts to employ minorities and women evenly across projects. These provisions directly encourage contractors to monitor and manage staffing decisions on the basis of race, even though contractors were ostensibly prohibited from “us[ing] the goals and timetables or affirmative action standards to discriminate” on that and other bases. 41 CFR 60-4.3(a)(10). These requirements operate in a context where compliance directly affects a contractor's eligibility for Federal work and exposure to enforcement action, including the potential loss of existing or future contract revenue. Such financial incentive structure can exert significant pressure on contractors to manage staffing decisions on the basis of race.
In addition, the affirmative action steps mandated by OFCCP's construction equal opportunity clause are facially race-based. The regulations require contractors to take specific preferential actions with respect to minority applicants or employees because of their race—or, here, grouping of their races as “minority” races—without imposing corresponding obligations with respect to non-minority individuals.
Ultimately, both the placement- and participation-goal frameworks rest on the premise that nondiscriminatory employment practices should yield workforces that approach proportional representation based on the labor pool, and that deviations from such representation warrant correction. Part 60-2 states that, absent discrimination, a contractor's workforce is expected to “reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic profile of the labor pools from which [it] recruits and selects.” 41 CFR 60-2.10(a)(1). Part 60-4 similarly defines participation goals as the percentages of hours of employment that a contractor “should reasonably be able to achieve.” 41 CFR 60-4.3(a)(4). As discussed above in section III(B)(1), there are often benign reasons for members of certain racial or ethnic groups being over- or under-represented in a particular line of work. And courts have squarely rejected the proportional representation premise as constitutionally suspect. In
OFCCP's race-based affirmative action regulations cannot survive strict scrutiny. The regulations do not serve a compelling governmental interest, and even if such an interest could be identified, they are not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
As the state attorneys general explained, the only potentially relevant compelling interest recognized by the Supreme Court in this context is the remediation of identified occurrences of past discrimination.
For the Department to impose a blanket requirement that all contractors nationwide address a general underutilization of minorities through race-based employment goals and other affirmative measures, the Department would need to identify concomitant discrimination—that is systematic, nationwide discrimination by all contractors nationwide against all minorities in which the Federal Government itself was an active or passive participant.
Even assuming the Department could demonstrate widespread Federal governmental participation in discrimination that could be remedied with race-motivated policies, the E.O. 11246 regulations fail the narrow tailoring requirement for several reasons. First, narrow tailoring minimally requires serious, good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.
Under OFCCP's regulations, individuals of different races are treated interchangeably, as long as the races qualify as “minority” in the view of the agency. Paradoxically, even a contractor with a history of discrimination against black workers could “remedy” that discrimination in the eyes of OFCCP by hiring individuals of other minority races. Regardless, the interchangeability of individuals of different minority races under the regulations significantly broadens—not narrows—their scope. Ultimately, that breadth as well as the permanence of the affirmative action regulations related to E.O. 11246—as noted above, they apply across all industries, to all minority groups, and without temporal limitation—preclude a finding of narrow tailoring.
The overbreadth of the affirmative action requirements in parts 60-2 and 60-4 is underscored when compared against targeted remedial orders that preceded them. For example, the Third Circuit affirmed the 1969 Philadelphia Plan, an affirmative action order that applied only to six construction trades in the Philadelphia area and was based on the Secretary of Labor's finding that race-conscious hiring goals were necessary to remedy “obvious underrepresentation [that] was due to the exclusionary practices of the unions” in those specific trades.
OFCCP's race-based affirmative action regulations are unlikely to satisfy the compelling-interest requirement and definitively fail the narrow-tailoring requirement. On these bases alone, the Department concludes that the regulations cannot survive strict scrutiny and should be rescinded.
The Department further concludes that the affirmative action requirements in 41 CFR parts 60-2 and 60-4 are sex-conscious regulations that are unlikely to satisfy intermediate scrutiny, which requires that the classification serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to the achievement of that objective.
The Supreme Court has explained that “[i]n limited circumstances, a gender-based classification favoring one sex can be justified if it intentionally and directly assists members of the sex that is disproportionately burdened.”
The Department does not dispute that women have at times experienced discrimination in certain trades or occupations. The constitutional problem is not the existence of discrimination in some contexts, but the absence of any findings that the sex-conscious requirements in parts 60-2 and 60-4 are tied to discrimination by particular employers or even to discrimination within specific industries, occupations, trades, or geographic areas. The rulemaking records for part 60-2 do not contain findings of sex-based discrimination in specific nonconstruction trades. OFCCP's first issuance of goals and timetables for the construction industry contains a discussion of the state of female employment in the industry, citing comparative workforce participation data, testimony presented at fact-finding hearings, studies indicating that placement goals would increase the percentage of women interested in applying for construction jobs and the impact of a Maritime Administration goals program on the increased representation of women in that workforce. The discussion did not, however, include court findings or other concrete evidence of proven systemic discrimination against women across the industry.
Instead, the structure and text of the regulations indicate that their objective is not the remediation of identified, trade-specific discrimination but the
Moreover, the means employed by parts 60-2 and 60-4 likely are not substantially related to the objective of remedying past discrimination, at least in the main. The regulations in part 60-2 apply broadly across industries and occupations without regard to whether discrimination occurred in a particular sector, job group, or geographic area. Although the regulations in part 60-4 are limited to construction, OFCCP established a uniform 6.9 percent participation goal for women nationwide, without accounting for regional variation, differences among construction trades, or evidence of past discrimination in particular local labor markets.
By imposing a single nationwide participation goal untethered to specific findings of sex-based discrimination in particular trades or regions, the regulations reflect a generalized sex-balancing approach rather than a remedial program that addresses identified discrimination.
The types of sex-based classifications upheld under intermediate scrutiny are materially different from the broad, industry-wide requirements imposed by these regulations. For example, in
While intermediate scrutiny is less demanding than strict scrutiny, the Department concludes that the sex-based affirmative action requirements in parts 60-2 and 60-4 raise serious constitutional concerns and are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Some commenters, including the CRF and America First Legal, agreed with the Department's concern that OFCCP's race-based and sex-based affirmative action regulations conflict with Federal civil rights law—specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—because they require contractors to address underutilization of minorities and women, but not other groups.
The Lawyers' Committee asserted that OFCCP has historically interpreted E.O. 11246's nondiscrimination provisions to be analogous to and consistent with Title VII. That assertion is largely correct with respect to OFCCP's nondiscrimination regulations at 41 CFR parts 60-1, 60-20, and 60-50. But the affirmative action regulations at parts 60-2 and 60-4 go further. They require contractors not only to establish employment goals for minorities and women but also to undertake specific employment actions with respect to those groups to meet those “goals.” These requirements conflict with the text of Title VII, which generally prohibits covered employers from making employment decisions because of an individual's race or sex. Title VII also makes it an unlawful employment practice to “classify” employees or applicants in a manner that deprives or tends to deprive individuals of employment opportunities because of race, color, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 broadened this prohibition by providing that an unlawful employment practice is established when race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was even “a motivating factor” for an employment practice, even if other factors also motivated, or even were the primary reasons for, the decision. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m). The statutory text of Title VII thus adopts a broad prohibition on race- and sex-based employment practices that, on its face, bars affirmative action measures to meet numeric goals based on those characteristics.
As several commenters noted, the Supreme Court has construed Title VII to permit race- or sex-conscious affirmative action in extremely narrow circumstances.
Under the
To comply with the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations, a contractor must establish race- and sex-based employment goals and take other race- and sex-conscious employment actions. The Department does not believe such practices would fit within the
“[T]he existence of an affirmative action plan . . . when combined with evidence that the plan was followed in an employment decision is sufficient to constitute direct evidence of unlawful discrimination unless the plan is valid.”
The Department also considered the compatibility of 41 CFR part 60-4's affirmative action requirements as applied to contractors performing federally assisted construction projects with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 2000d
Under that framework, race-based affirmative action measures—even those falling short of explicit quotas—are permissible only when narrowly tailored to remedy identified, specific instances of past discrimination or, in limited contexts, to address imminent and serious threats to human safety. As explained above, the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations applicable to federally assisted construction projects would not pass this exacting test. They are not tied to identified instances of past discrimination by recipients of Federal assistance and apply broadly without regard to local conditions or historical findings. Accordingly, the Department also concludes that these regulations compel recipients of Federal financial assistance to engage in race-based conduct that conflicts with Title VI.
Like the unconstitutionality of the affirmative action regulations, those regulations' incompatibility with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act supplies independent reasons for their rescission. The Department agrees with the conclusion of the state attorneys general that the regulations' “requirements run counter to deeply rooted legal and moral principles enshrined in the constitutions of the United States and our states and state and federal civil rights laws.”
Several commenters, including the attorneys general of 22 states, the EPPC, New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), and the ACR Project, questioned the Department's statutory authority to maintain regulations implementing E.O. 11246. These commenters contended that, regardless of E.O. 11246's status, the regulations the Department proposes to rescind are unlawful because Congress never authorized them. They argued that the E.O. 11246 regulations impose legally binding affirmative action and nondiscrimination obligations on contractors and therefore constitute legislative rules requiring a clear delegation of authority from
The state attorneys general and the EPPC invoked the major questions doctrine and argued that the Procurement Act's purpose of ensuring an economical and efficient system of procurement does not supply authority to impose broad employment mandates governing contractors' hiring and employment practices. NCLA further noted that the Department cited the Procurement Act as the source of authority for E.O. 11246 regulations only decades after the Executive Order's issuance, arguing that this delayed reliance undermines any claim that the regulations reflect a contemporaneous or longstanding interpretation of statutory authority. The state attorneys general and other commenters urged the Department to rescind the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations not only because E.O. 11246 has been revoked, but also because the regulations lack statutory authorization. These commenters encouraged the Department to acknowledge this lack of authority in the final rule to clarify the limits of agency authority with respect to the E.O. 11246 regulations.
No commenters defended the Procurement Act as statutory authority for the E.O. 11246 regulations. Several commenters suggested alternative sources of authority. Some commenters argued that the longevity of the E.O. 11246 regulations supports their statutory authorization. The AFL-CIO stated that generally applicable equal employment opportunity laws enacted by Congress require compliance with the regulations. NNU argued that Congress ratified the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework through enactment of section 718 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972.
In light of these comments, the Department has reconsidered its authority to maintain the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 under the Procurement Act and the alternative statutory ground suggested by commenters. Upon review, the Department has determined that it lacks statutory authority for significant portions of the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework, including its regulations requiring race- and sex-based affirmative action related to E.O. 11246 and authorizing OFCCP to seek monetary relief in E.O. 11246 administrative proceedings against contractors. The Department further believes that the Procurement Act could authorize it to require contractors to follow Federal nondiscrimination law—but not to seek monetary relief for violations in E.O. 11246 administrative proceedings.
An agency “literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”
NCLA pointed out in its comment that “Executive Order 11246 and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it might well be fine, if they did not seek to bind the conduct of anyone outside the Executive Branch.” But in fact, the regulations do extend beyond the Executive Branch by subjecting private parties to non-contractual legally binding requirements and to significant monetary loss. They are enforceable judicially as if they had the force of law. 41 CFR 60-1.26(a), (c)-(d). “But in order for such regulations to have the `force and effect of law,' ” the Supreme Court explained when considering OFCCP's E.O. 11246 authority, “it is necessary to establish a nexus between the regulations and some delegation of the requisite legislative authority by Congress.”
In
Despite the Supreme Court's clarification in 1979 that OFCCP regulations must be rooted in statutory authority, the Department continued to promulgate regulations implementing E.O. 11246 without identifying any statutory basis in rulemaking documents. For example, a 1982 rule confirming OFCCP's ability to seek back pay and other monetary relief in administrative proceedings against contractors asserted that “the Executive Order vests OFCCP with the legal authority to seek back pay for victims of discrimination,” without citing any statute. Government Contractors; Affirmative Action Requirements, 47 FR 17770, 17773 (Apr. 23, 1982).
With this backdrop in mind, the Department turns to an analysis of its statutory authority for affirmative action, administrative adjudication, and nondiscrimination regulations implementing E.O. 11246, beginning with the Procurement Act and then alternative sources of statutory authority suggested by commenters.
The Procurement Act authorizes the President to “prescribe policies and directives that the President considers necessary to carry out” the Procurement Act's purpose, which includes providing the Federal Government “with an economical and efficient system for . . . [p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services, and performing related functions including contracting.” 40 U.S.C. 101, 121(a). Courts interpreting this provision have generally required a “sufficiently close nexus” between the requirements imposed by an Executive Order and the Procurement Act's goals of economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.
In
More recently, the Supreme Court articulated the major questions doctrine, under which an agency must point to clear congressional authorization when asserting regulatory authority of vast economic or political significance.
Several commenters argued that the major questions doctrine applies to OFCCP's regulations. The state attorneys general argued that “[r]egulating the hiring practices of approximately one-fifth the U.S. workforce to require employers to engage in discriminatory affirmative action no doubt implicates decisions of vast economic and political significance.” (citing
Part 60-2 applies to nonconstruction contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and a Federal contract of at least $50,000. These regulations require contractors to analyze their workforce by race, ethnicity, and sex; compare workforce representation to labor-market availability; and, where minorities or women are deemed “underutilized,” establish placement goals at least equal to availability and take affirmative steps to meet those goals. Part 60-4 applies to contractors and subcontractors performing Federal construction contracts or federally assisted construction contracts exceeding $10,000. Those regulations require contractors to use minority and female participation goals established by the Department and to take affirmative action to achieve those goals.
In considering whether the Procurement Act authorizes Parts 60-2 and 60-4, the Department finds that the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations likely trigger the major questions doctrine because they rest upon an assertion of regulatory authority of significant economic and political consequence. The Department estimates that approximately one-fifth of U.S. workers are employed by contractors subject to OFCCP's regulations, and courts have found regulatory regimes of comparable scope to be economically significant for purposes of the major questions doctrine.
The Department also believes these affirmative action requirements to be politically significant within the meaning of the doctrine. Government-mandated classifications based on race and sex occupy a central place in contemporary public debate and have long been treated by courts as constitutionally sensitive. Although the constitutionality and consistency with Federal law of the E.O. 11246 affirmative action requirements are addressed elsewhere in this preamble, the Department concludes that the major questions doctrine independently requires clear congressional authorization for an agency to impose race- and sex-based employment mandates of this nature. By contrast, procurement contract conditions prohibiting discrimination and reinforcing compliance with existing Federal civil rights law do not represent the type of transformative assertion of regulatory authority that would implicate the major questions doctrine.
That clear statement requirement is especially strong here because the regulations mandate race- and sex-conscious employment practices that are “presumptively invalid” under the Constitution,
Similar concerns arise under Title VII. As explained above, compliance with OFCCP's affirmative action regulations encourage contractors to engage in race- and sex-conscious employment practices that would constitute direct evidence of unlawful discrimination under Title VII unless they fall within the narrow
In sum, without clear congressional authorization, the Department will not infer an intent to delegate authority to impose race- and sex-conscious employment mandates that raise serious constitutional concerns and that depart so sharply from the background principles of Federal civil rights law. The Procurement Act contains no such clear authorization for the broader affirmative-action framework implemented under E.O. 11246.
These concerns are reinforced by the Department's regulatory history. While the Department has cited the Procurement Act as statutory authority for its nondiscrimination regulations, it has not previously identified the Procurement Act—nor any other statute—as providing clear authority to promulgate affirmative action regulations that encourage race- and sex-based employment considerations in employment. An effort to locate such authority now would require reading into a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a substantial portion of the national workforce, a circumstance that courts have repeatedly viewed with skepticism.
The Department further finds application of the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations to federally assisted construction projects exceeds the Procurement Act's authority for another reason. These projects are distinct from Federal procurement. Under the Procurement Act, the President's authority extends to prescribing policies and directives necessary to provide the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for “[p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services, and performing related functions.” 40 U.S.C. 101, 121(a). Federal financial assistance—where the Government provides grants or other assistance to third parties rather than procuring construction services for itself—does not constitute procurement of property or nonpersonal services and therefore falls outside the Procurement Act's core “economical and efficient” authority.
This conclusion is reinforced by the 1976 amendments to the Procurement Act, which expressly prohibited sex discrimination in “a program or activity carried on or receiving federal assistance under this subtitle[.]” 40 U.S.C. 122(a). Congress's decision to legislate separately with respect to sex discrimination in federally assisted programs confirms that Federal assistance is distinct from procurement and that conditions imposed on recipients of such assistance require separate and explicit statutory authorization, rather than reliance on the Procurement Act's general procurement-based “economical and efficient” authority.
The Department recognizes that
Accordingly, the Department concludes that the Procurement Act does not provide congressional authorization necessary to support OFCCP's race- and sex-conscious affirmative action regulations related to E.O. 11246. As explained below, the concerns identified here arising from race- and sex-based affirmative action obligations do not undermine the authority under the Procurement Act to condition contracts on nondiscrimination requirements that are consistent with Federal civil rights law.
The regulations at 41 CFR 60-1.26 authorize OFCCP to enforce its affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements related to E.O. 11246 through administrative proceedings in which the agency may seek monetary relief, including back pay. Those proceedings operate with the force of law and are reviewed by Federal courts under a deferential standard. The regulations' creation of a quasi-judicial enforcement mechanism within the Executive Branch required a clear grant of authority from Congress.
Title VII's comprehensive and carefully calibrated framework for enforcing employment discrimination claims reinforces the Department's belief that it lacks authority to adjudicate employment nondiscrimination claims under E.O. 11246.
That statutory structure reflects deliberate legislative judgments concerning forum, process, and explicit authorization of relief for employment discrimination. It would therefore be inappropriate to presume that Congress implicitly authorized the Department to operate a parallel administrative enforcement system—empowered to adjudicate employment discrimination claims and award monetary relief against private sector employers—through the Procurement Act's general provisions, particularly where Congress affirmatively rejected that very model when enacting Title VII.
The Department concludes that the Procurement Act does not authorize OFCCP to bring E.O. 11246-related administrative enforcement actions against contractors to compensate alleged victims of employment discrimination.
The Department also received comments regarding its proposal to relocate the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures from the revoked E.O. 11246 regulations directly into the VEVRAA and Section 503 implementing regulations. Some commenters expressed their support for this proposal, asserting that the relocation is reasonable in light of the E.O. 11246 rescission. Other commenters recommended that the Department modify the administrative enforcement proceeding procedures because of recent case law in this area.
The Department concludes that it is not necessary to address the constitutional question raised by these comments because E.O. 11246 has been revoked and, in any event, OFCCP's administrative enforcement of E.O. 11246 is not statutorily authorized. Moving regulations concerning procedural provisions will provide clarity about the administrative enforcement procedures applicable to VEVRAA and Section 503. The Department acknowledges that the case law in this area is evolving. To the extent that the Department determines that it may need to update these procedures in light of changing case law, such changes may be pursued in a separate rulemaking.
The Department next considers regulations at Part 60-1 containing nondiscrimination requirements relating to race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. As explained above, the Department concludes that the Procurement Act's “economical and efficient” authority is limited to Federal procurement and does not extend to Federal financial assistance. That authority therefore does not delegate power to impose general nondiscrimination requirements on recipients or subrecipients of Federal assistance, nor does it authorize the Department to seek monetary relief through administrative enforcement mechanisms.
That said, the Procurement Act nonetheless authorizes the President to impose requirements through contract clauses designed to promote economy and efficiency in procurement. To keep such authority within the government's procurement powers, nondiscrimination requirements should be enforced through procurement-based remedies, such as cancellation or debarment, as opposed to back-pay or other monetary relief for nonparties to the procurement contract at issue. As noted above, the nondiscrimination requirements imposed under E.O. 11246 were not limited to conduct occurring in connection with the performance of work under a procurement contract but instead applied across a contractor's entire workforce, including employees whose duties bore no relationship to Federal procurement. This lack of a limiting procurement nexus contributed to the significant economic and political scope of the regulatory scheme. By contrast, limiting procurement-based nondiscrimination requirements to conduct occurring in connection with the performance of Federal contract work better ensures the requisite nexus to the government's interest in economy and efficiency in procurement. Such a limitation confines the requirements to the context in which the government acts as a market participant and helps avoid the type of broad assertion of regulatory authority over a contractor's general employment practices that could raise concerns under the major questions doctrine.
Properly limited, procurement-based nondiscrimination conditions applicable solely to work performed in connection with Federal contracts fall within the President's authority under the Procurement Act to promote an economical and efficient system of Federal procurement. The Federal Government has a legitimate interest in contracting with firms that do not exclude qualified workers on grounds unrelated to merit and that therefore draw from the full available labor force, reducing inefficiencies associated with unjustified exclusionary practices.
By contrast, imposing nondiscrimination requirements under the Procurement Act that create substantive employment obligations beyond existing Federal civil rights law or that establish parallel regulatory enforcement regimes could raise serious legal concerns. The Procurement Act's “economical and efficient” authority does not supply sufficient authorization for transformative procurement conditions, such as a vaccine mandate applicable to contractors' employees.
An example of an E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination obligation not found in Federal discrimination law is the compensation-discussion anti-retaliation provisions promulgated pursuant to E.O. 13665's amendments to section 202 of E.O. 11246.
Upon reconsideration, the Department concludes that this speculative rationale does not satisfy the Procurement Act's requirement of a “close nexus” between procurement conditions and the government's interest in economy and efficiency.
Some commenters noted that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects certain workers from retaliation for engaging in “concerted activity,” including wage discussions, and argued that those protections do not extend to all categories of workers, such as agricultural workers and supervisors. These commenters urged the Department to extend such protection to all contractor workers. But the NLRA's coverage is a reflection of Congress's deliberate policy judgment. If Congress determines that the scope of anti-retaliation protections should be expanded, then it may do so through legislation.
The Department declines to rely on attenuated procurement-efficiency reasoning to expand such protections beyond the boundaries Congress established. Even where a procurement-based nondiscrimination condition would not independently trigger the major questions doctrine, the Procurement Act requires that such a condition be justified by a sufficient nexus to procurement economy and efficiency. Any additional nondiscrimination requirement must produce benefits to procurement efficiency that are not outweighed by compliance costs that are passed on to the government. Absent a demonstrated, cost-justified connection to procurement economy and efficiency, novel nondiscrimination requirements may exceed the Procurement Act's authorization.
Accordingly, the Department concludes that while the Procurement Act would support procurement-based nondiscrimination conditions that operate as contractual assurances of compliance with existing Federal employment discrimination law and that are enforceable only through traditional contract remedies, the Procurement Act does not provide authority under E.O. 11246 to impose nondiscrimination requirements on recipients of Federal financial assistance, to establish new or expanded nondiscrimination standards, or to authorize administrative adjudication or monetary relief outside traditional procurement remedies, such as contract cancellation or debarment. At the same time, the Department recognizes that the Procurement Act supports nondiscrimination requirements applicable to contractors, provided such requirements are enforced through contract remedies, consistent with existing Federal civil rights law, and have a close nexus to the economy and efficiency of Federal procurement. Thus, nothing in this rule limits or questions the President's authority under the Procurement Act to impose nondiscrimination requirements on Federal contractors through contract terms designed to promote economy and efficiency in procurement. To the contrary, properly tailored procurement conditions prohibiting discrimination in a manner consistent with existing Federal civil rights laws fall squarely within the traditional scope of that authority.
Finally, the Procurement Act delegates this power to the President, not the Department.
Several commenters advanced alternative arguments in support of the regulations' legality. The Department has carefully considered these arguments and for the reasons explained below is unpersuaded.
Nearly all comments opposing the rescission stressed the sixty-year duration of the regulatory regime under E.O. 11246, implying or explicitly arguing that the duration of the regulations supports their statutory authorization. The Department disagrees.
Because legislative power is vested in Congress, exercise of quasi-legislative authority by executive agencies must be rooted in an affirmative delegation of authority from Congress and remain subject to the limits Congress imposes.
Some commenters contended that generally applicable equal employment opportunity statutes—particularly Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—authorize or require compliance with the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework. For example, the AFL-CIO asserted that “EEO laws, which were passed by Congress, require compliance” with the regulations. However, neither Title VI nor Title VII “contain[ ] any express delegation of substantive lawmaking authority to the President [or the Department].”
As explained above, the Department's regulations requiring affirmative action are inconsistent with Titles VI and VII. Under existing precedent, which may no longer be viable in light of
Titles VI and VII likewise do not authorize OFCCP's nondiscrimination enforcement regime. Congress assigned enforcement authority under Title VI to the DOJ and to agencies administering Federal financial assistance, subject to specific procedural and remedial limits. Congress assigned private-sector enforcement authority under Title VII to the EEOC, which lacks authority to adjudicate claims or award monetary relief in administrative proceedings and must pursue enforcement through Federal court. Neither statute assigns any enforcement or adjudicatory role to the Department of Labor with respect to private-sector employment discrimination.
NNU argued that Congress ratified the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations through enactment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, pointing to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-17. As an initial matter, Congress's rejection of proposed provisions in the 1972 Act, which would have curtailed affirmative action efforts under E.O. 11246, does not constitute ratification.
To effect ratification of prior agency action, Congress must recognize that the action was unauthorized when taken and must expressly ratify it in clear and unequivocal statutory language.
Section 2000e-17, relied on by NNU, limits the circumstances under which a Federal agency may deny, withhold, terminate, or suspend a government contract where an employer has an affirmative action plan previously accepted by the Government, unless the employer is afforded a full administrative hearing. The provision is procedural and constraining in nature. It does not acknowledge that the E.O. 11246 regulations were unauthorized when adopted, nor does it confer authority to impose affirmative action or nondiscrimination requirements.
If anything, Section 2000e-17 restricts agencies' use of procurement sanctions to enforce equal opportunity law. While the provision reflects congressional awareness that some contractors maintained AAPs under executive orders, it nowhere authorizes the Department or any other agency to require AAPs, much less race- or sex-based employment goals. Nor does it authorize any agency to seek monetary relief in administrative proceedings.
Accordingly, neither Section 2000e-17 nor any other provision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 provides statutory authorization for the E.O. 11246 affirmative action, nondiscrimination, or administrative adjudication regulations.
Finally, even if Congress had purported to ratify non-remedial race- or sex-based affirmative action requirements of the type imposed by OFCCP's regulations, such ratification would not bind the Department, compelling it to retain regulations that raise serious constitutional concerns. After Congress has expressed approval of regulations, an agency “may well reach a different judgment given changed circumstances.”
For these reasons, the Department concludes that none of the alternative sources of statutory authority identified by commenters authorizes the regulatory framework implementing E.O. 11246. The Procurement Act's goal of ensuring an “economical and efficient” system of Federal procurement does not authorize E.O. 11246 regulations requiring affirmative action or empowering OFCCP to seek monetary relief through administrative proceedings. The Department agrees with the state attorneys general and other commenters that those portions of the regulatory framework lack statutory authorization and would therefore require rescission even if E.O. 11246 had not been revoked. At the same time, the Department recognizes that the Procurement Act may support certain nondiscrimination requirements applicable to contractors, to the extent such requirements are enforced through contract remedies, consistent with existing Federal civil rights law, and have a close nexus to the economy and efficiency of Federal procurement.
Some commenters supported the rescission of the E.O. 11246 regulations on the grounds that rescission would yield favorable economic effects, including reduced compliance costs and regulatory burdens. Other commenters who opposed rescission contended that
An agency must consider and respond to significant comments that it receives during the comment period.
Although not determinative of the result, the Department nonetheless concludes that rescission is ultimately beneficial. As explained below, rescinding these regulations reduces regulatory burdens and compliance costs for contractors, with resulting savings passed on to contracting Federal agencies and, ultimately, to consumers and taxpayers. Rescission also eliminates regulatory mandates that required or encouraged race- and sex-based decision-making, promoted racialized frameworks that divided Americans along immutable characteristics, and conflicted with the Nation's commitment to equal treatment under the law. Moreover, the Department finds that the regulations at issue produced no discernible benefits that could justify their continuation and, at best, duplicated existing statutory protections under Federal civil rights law and agency procurement policies. At worst, they impose costly, divisive, and unnecessary requirements that undermine meritocracy and drive social division.
In evaluating the effects of rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246, the Department begins by considering social and institutional consequences of government-mandated consideration of race and sex in employment decision-making and processes.
Beyond being at odds with the Constitution's equal protection principles, the Department is concerned that government policies that classify individuals by race foster resentment, erodes trust, and weakens shared civic identity that underpins a pluralistic society.
These problems are amplified by the arbitrary nature of racial and ethnic categories.
The Department is also mindful of the stigma associated with race- and sex-based employment decisions. Employment systems that rely on numerical goals or benchmarks tied to race or sex may undermine confidence in merit-based outcomes and cast doubt on the achievements of women and minority workers by creating uncertainty as to whether their selections reflect job qualifications or race- and sex-based employment goals. Such goals “stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority.”
Taken together, the Department believes these considerations reinforce the Department's conclusion that rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 promotes equal treatment under law and advances social cohesion by rejecting race- and sex-based decision-making in employment. Moving away from government-imposed racial classifications and toward neutral, merit-based standards supports workplace fairness and reduces division and conflict. The proposed rescission therefore represents an overdue course correction toward individual dignity and equality under the law.
In the NPRM, the Department noted that rescinding the regulations will improve the efficiency of the Federal
The Department disagrees with these comments. Rather than promoting efficient and effective performance of government contracts, the requirements imposed significant and unnecessary burdens on contractors. For example, the AAP requirements set forth at 41 CFR 60-2.10 alone required contractors to create an organizational profile, conduct a job group analysis, and conduct an availability analysis, among other requirements, on an annual basis. Further, resolving cases under E.O. 11246's framework often resulted in prolonged disputes about the legal sufficiency of the agency's findings and proposed remedies. With these disputes, an E.O. 11246 discrimination case would take, on average, over three years to resolve. Many contractors would also hire legal representatives, consultants, and statistical experts to help resolve these matters, which resulted in greater expenditure of time and money. Even a technical violation allegation—such as a contractor's alleged noncompliance with an affirmative action provision—would average over 14 months to resolve. Based on the cost-benefit analysis in Section IV(B) below, the elimination of these requirements will result in quantified annual savings and benefits of approximately $996.37 million per year.
Many commenters agreed that these burdens were significant and unnecessary. Commenters representing contractors, including Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), generally agreed. ABC emphasized that the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 impose substantial compliance costs on contractors by requiring them to develop, implement, and continuously update detailed AAPs. These costs are ultimately passed on to the Federal government through higher contract prices. ABC further contended that these regulatory requirements operated as a barrier to entry for small businesses that lack the resources to hire specialized consultants, human resources personnel, or legal counsel to maintain compliant AAPs. According to ABC, increases in regulatory burden correlated with declining small-business participation in Federal contracting, reducing competition and driving up prices.
State attorneys general likewise commented that regulations implementing E.O. 11246 “create barriers to entry that newer or smaller market participants cannot surmount” because they “may simply not be sophisticated enough to make it through the complicated maze of affirmative action rules, plans, and audits or cannot afford the additional financial costs associated with compliance.” The Department finds persuasive ABC's evidence that the regulations impose disproportionate burdens on smaller firms, reduce competition for government contracts, and increase costs to the government. The Department expects that rescinding these regulations would increase competition, which could result in cost savings to the government and taxpayers. Other commenters took the opposite view. For example, NWLC asserted that E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations improve contracting efficiency because they are “critical mechanisms” for ensuring that contractors access a wider pool of talent. The Department disagrees. Contractors have strong incentives to recruit and retain qualified workers from the broadest possible labor pool. The Department finds no persuasive basis for concluding that contractors would otherwise forgo qualified talent absent race- or sex-based employment goals. And commenters have not identified any.
To the contrary, the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations diminish the role of merit and job-related qualification in requiring contractors to consider sex- and race-based employment goals and related requirements. E.O. 14398 discusses the inefficiencies of consideration of race and sex as opposed to merit in Federal contractors' personnel decisions and the costs such inefficiencies pass on to the Federal Government.
Some commenters, including labor organization and advocacy groups, argued that rescinding regulations requiring contractors to take action to meet race- and sex-based employment goals will result in fewer qualified minorities and women being hired or promoted. The Department disagrees. There are many talented, hardworking women and minority workers who succeed based on their qualifications and merit and would be hired or promoted regardless of whether contractors are subject to race- or sex-based employment goals. As noted above, the existence of race- and sex-based employment goals may undermine the standing of those individuals by calling into question whether their achievements are attributable to merit or to regulatory mandates.
NWLC relied in part on a General Services Administration survey purporting to show positive associations between diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and workplace well-being. The Department finds this evidence unpersuasive. The survey is based on subjective self-reported responses, and it does not examine the specific regulatory requirements at issue here—namely, compliance with government-imposed race- and sex-based employment goals. It does not provide a reliable basis for evaluating the economic or competitive effects of the E.O. 11246 regulatory framework.
The AFL-CIO further warned that “[w]ith the removal of these procedures, contractors will have a much more complicated and potentially costly regulatory environment where they will need to be compliant with a host of state and local laws instead of the predictable federal requirements.” But E.O. 11246 did not preempt state and local anti-discrimination laws with a common purpose.
Some commenters asserted that rescinding the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 will result in increased employment discrimination against minorities and women by contractors, contending that the enforcement framework established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is insufficient to deter or remedy such discrimination.
In particular, these commenters argued that E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations are broader in scope and applicability than civil rights laws enacted by Congress. For instance, they noted that Title VII does not apply to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, whereas the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations apply to such small businesses, as long as they have more than $10,000 in Federal contracts. Commenters also noted that E.O. 11246 had additional protections compared to Title VII. For example, the E.O. 11246 regulations included more details about what constitutes sex discrimination under the regulations and included sexual orientation and gender identity as protected bases.
As some commenters noted, the E.O. 11246 regulations also prohibit contractors from taking adverse employment actions against applicants or employees who inquire about, discuss, or disclose information about their pay or their co-workers' pay, subject to certain limitations. The E.O. 11246 regulations' administrative enforcement mechanism is also more expedient than Title VII's enforcement framework through the Federal courts, where the defendant has substantially greater rights. These points, however, only reinforce the Department's determination that many aspects of OFCCP's nondiscrimination regulations conflict with Title VII.
The Federal Government will continue to enforce nondiscrimination requirements outside the Title VII framework through the procurement process. For example, E.O. 14173 directs agencies to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. Executive Order 14398 requires procuring agencies to ensure that contractors do not engage in unlawful race-based discrimination, placing enforcement responsibility with the contracting agencies themselves rather than OFCCP. Violation of this clause can lead to contract cancellation or debarment. Further, Federal agencies have long enforced nondiscrimination requirements in analogous contexts, including under Title VI for recipients of Federal financial assistance. Agency oversight over their own programs has operated for decades and provides a familiar and workable mechanism for addressing unlawful discrimination. Accordingly, the Department concludes that rescission of the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination regulations will not weaken protections against unlawful discrimination and will instead align Federal procurement enforcement with established statutory frameworks and principles of agency accountability.
Commenters also noted that while the EEOC investigates charges of discrimination under Title VII, the Department conducted E.O. 11246 compliance evaluations in addition to complaint investigations. During these compliance evaluations, the Department reviewed contractors' records and employment activity data (
The Department also received several comments which asserted rescinding the E.O. 11246 regulations' data collection and affirmative action requirements would weaken discrimination protections. Some commenters asserted that these requirements protected all workers, not just minorities and women. Commenters also believed that these requirements ensured that contractors were undertaking proactive, regular analyses of their workplace policies to identify and remedy discriminatory barriers to equal employment opportunity.
The Department carefully reviewed these comments and disagrees with these commenters. First, commenters' concerns about weakening protections and stopping E.O. 11246 compliance evaluations are unfounded. In addition to Title VII, contractors are subject to extensive employment discrimination laws at the local and state level. Further, while the Department conducted compliance evaluations pursuant to the E.O. 11246 regulations, it typically reviewed less than 2% of the contractor universe each year. As a matter of policy, the Department largely limited its compliance evaluations to larger contractors who already fall under Title VII's employee thresholds.
The Department also notes that one of the reasons for rescinding the E.O. 11246 regulations is to ensure that contractors are not using the E.O. 11246 requirements to justify illegal discrimination against workers. While the E.O. 11246 nondiscrimination obligations were designed to cover all protected groups, the regulations required affirmative action regarding only women and minorities. In effect, these requirements induced contractors to create policies and programs designed to account for race and sex in hiring and personnel decisions. In addition to being unlawful, using race- and sex-based preferences diminishes the importance of individual merit when making employment decisions. Several commenters agreed with this position, stating that the E.O. 11246 regulations conflicted with prohibitions against race and sex-based decision making or required contractors to prioritize demographic targets over individual merit and qualifications, ultimately undermining the
The Department considered as a regulatory alternative rescinding the affirmative action requirements of the E.O. 11246 regulations while retaining OFCCP-administered nondiscrimination requirements that are consistent with Federal civil rights law and that could be authorized under the Procurement Act's authority to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting. Under this approach, OFCCP would have continued to enforce prohibitions on unlawful discrimination through the use of procurement remedies despite the elimination of affirmative action obligations. The Department also considered as an alternative modifying the regulations to state that the utilization goals are purely aspirational and contractors have no obligation to take action to meet race- and sex-based goals.
The Department concludes, however, that these alternatives are not available. Executive Order 14173 expressly revoked E.O. 11246 and withdrew the President's prior sub-delegation of Procurement Act authority to the Department of Labor for enforcement of nondiscrimination requirements in Federal contracting. Because the Department no longer possesses delegated authority under the Procurement Act to generally enforce contractor nondiscrimination obligations, it lacks a lawful basis to retain any piece of the OFCCP-administered nondiscrimination regulatory framework tied to E.O. 11246. Accordingly, partial rescission is not a legally viable alternative.
The Department also considered potential reliance interests implicated by rescission of the E.O. 11246 regulations. But E.O. 11246 has been revoked and there can be no legitimate reliance on authorities that are no longer in force.
To the extent employees and applicants of contractors have a legitimate reliance interest in continued protection from unlawful employment discrimination, that interest is preserved because Title VII provides a comprehensive and well-established framework prohibiting employment discrimination. In addition, E.O. 14173 directs Federal procuring agencies to ensure that contractors do not engage in unlawful discrimination, and those agencies retain authority to enforce nondiscrimination requirements within their respective procurement programs. The Department therefore concludes that rescission will not diminish protections against unlawful discrimination. To the extent any individual may claim a reliance interest in being hired or promoted because of the E.O. 11246 affirmative action regulations, the Department concludes that such an individual has no cognizable reliance interest in having his or her race or sex be a consideration in employment opportunities.
The Department received several comments that generally supported or opposed the rescission without providing substantive comments on the proposal. The Department also received a comment requesting guidance on how contractors can comply with E.O. 14173's requirement to certify compliance with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws as well as guidance on how to ensure that employment practices are non-discriminatory. In response, the Department notes that the E.O. 11246 regulations were not promulgated pursuant to E.O. 14173 and that, in any event, compliance with E.O. 14173 is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Some commenters presented alternatives to the rescission, including modifying E.O. 11246 rather than rescinding it altogether or replacing E.O. 11246 with a new Executive Order. The Department also received a comment claiming that the severability clause located at 41 CFR 60-1.48 should allow the Department to maintain the regulations related to pay transparency, despite the Department's proposed rescission of the remaining regulations, as pay transparency is facially neutral on the subjects of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin. The Department declines to adopt these recommendations. With the revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department no longer has legal authority to enforce the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations in their entirety. The pay transparency provisions at 41 CFR 60-1.4(a)(3), 60-1.4(b)(1)(3) and 60-1.35 are also part of this rescission, as they were issued as amendments to the E.O. 11246 regulations.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) asserted that E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations raised concerns for religious organizations seeking to serve as Federal contractors and subcontractors. Specifically, ADF asserted that many religious organizations' sincerely held beliefs precluded them from complying with certain aspects of E.O. 11246 and its implementing regulations, particularly those related to sex discrimination, sexual orientation, and gender identity. ADF believed that the Department's past rulemaking removed religious organizations' protections to exercise their religious beliefs when it came to personnel decisions and caused confusion about the scope of E.O. 11246's religious exemption provision. ADF also believed that rescinding the regulations would help address these concerns for religious organizations. Although the NPRM did not directly address these issues, the Department agrees that rescinding the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations will address confusion and uncertainty about the scope of the regulations and their alignment with other laws. It is the Department's view that the revocation of E.O. 11246 and the rescission of its implementing regulations eliminate the need for a religious employer exemption from E.O. 11246 in the first place. Since E.O. 11246 regulations no longer have the force of law, religious employers who are contractors do not need an exemption and may continue to exercise their sincerely held religious beliefs in the employment of individuals in their businesses, consistent with existing Federal civil rights law.
Another commenter also suggested that the Department revise its regulatory definition of “minority” at 41 CFR 60-4.3(a)1(d) because it believed that the criteria about who belongs in this group is unclear, specifically as to who belongs to a Hispanic minority group. In response, the Department notes that this definition will be rescinded, as it is part of the E.O. 11246 regulations. To the extent that this definition needs to be revisited in other parts of the agency's
The commenter also recommended that the Department conduct a review of all rules to ensure compliance with the policy objectives of the current administration. In response, the Department notes that it has and will continue to review its rules for consistency with the policy objectives of the current administration. To the extent that the Department determines that additional regulatory changes are necessary, those changes will be pursued in a separate rulemaking.
Another commenter suggested that the Department reconsider rescinding the UGESP provisions at 41 CFR part 60-3. This commenter believed that UGESP promotes meritocracy in hiring and promotions, as it provides guidelines for determining which practices are job related and consistent with business necessity. In response, the Department notes that 41 CFR part 60-3 will be rescinded in its entirety, as these guidelines are part of the E.O. 11246 regulations. However, as noted in the NPRM and in this final rule, this rescission does not affect other agencies' application and interpretation of the UGESP provisions.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. In accordance with E.O. 12866, the Department has determined that this final rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” because it would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This final rule rescinds regulations implementing E.O. 11246, consistent with E.O. 14173's revocation of that authority. Executive Order 14173, issued on January 21, 2025, revoked E.O. 11246 in its entirety and provided a 90-day transition period for compliance with existing regulations. That transition period has now expired. The rescission eliminates compliance obligations that previously applied to 107,165 supply and service entities and 9,982 construction contractors, employing approximately 32 million workers. The benefits apply most directly to 9,982 construction contractors and a subset of supply and service contractors (101,850 entities) that meet the affirmative action thresholds (totaling approximately 111,832 contractor entities).
In the NPRM, the Department estimated annual cost savings of $996.37 million based on an estimated reduction of 9,875,221 hours related to the E.O. 11246 requirements (
The Department maintains its estimate of $996.37 million in quantifiable annual cost savings from reduced compliance burdens, as set forth in the NPRM.
The Department lacks sufficient data to quantify these additional effects with a reasonable degree of confidence. Accordingly, the Department discusses these impacts qualitatively and, where appropriate, provides illustrative calculations based on stated assumptions to convey their potential magnitude.
The only cost of the final rule is rule familiarization, which is likely negligible because the Department has not enforced the regulations for over a year following the revocation of E.O. 11246 in January 2025. Regulated entities have already adjusted their behavior and have no need to review this final rule.
The rescission of the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations is necessary to implement President Trump's mandate in E.O. 14173, which revoked the E.O. 11246 authority. In addition to E.O. 14173's revocation of E.O. 11246, the Department identified several other reasons for rescinding the regulations, including legal vulnerabilities related to the affirmative action requirements, improving the efficiency of the Federal contracting process, decreasing employer burden, and providing regulatory certainty to contractors and other stakeholders by aligning the regulations with recent executive orders impacting the Department's enforcement.
This final rule imposes the least regulatory burden on contractors, as it rescinds all of the E.O. 11246 requirements (
The baseline for this analysis assumes continued compliance with the rescinded regulations, including requirements to prepare and maintain annual AAPs, conduct demographic and statistical analyses, implement compliance-related practices across personnel processes (
The entities affected by the final rule include supply and service contractors, construction contractors, and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors meeting applicable employee and contract dollar thresholds, across a wide range of industries. Compliance burdens are particularly significant for contractors operating multiple entities and for firms with limited administrative capacity relative to fixed regulatory costs.
The rescission of the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations may affect the distribution of Federal contract awards across firms and, correspondingly, employment opportunities across workers. Reducing affirmative action compliance obligations may lower barriers to entry for some firms that were previously deterred from pursuing Federal contracting opportunities due to the costs, administrative complexity, or perceived litigation risks associated with the regulations.
These effects may be especially relevant for smaller firms and firms with more limited human resources, legal, or compliance infrastructure. As ABC and other commenters noted, preparing written affirmative action programs, conducting utilization analyses, maintaining documentation systems, and managing related compliance activities impose proportionally larger fixed costs on smaller entities. Such a pattern is consistent with empirical research finding that fixed regulatory compliance costs disproportionately reduce market participation by smaller firms.
Any such shifts could also affect the distribution of employment opportunities among workers employed by participating firms. For example, because minority- and women-owned businesses are disproportionately concentrated among smaller firms, barriers that fall most heavily on small businesses may also disproportionately limit minority- and women-owned enterprises' participation in Federal contracting.
This final rule rescinds the regulations implementing E.O. 11246, consistent with the revocation of the underlying Executive Order. The Department has examined the economic effects of this action and concludes that the rescission will result in substantial cost savings for contractors, as well as downstream benefits to Federal procurement markets and taxpayers.
The anticipated benefits of the rule go beyond quantifiable PRA-based cost savings for contractors. By eliminating the regulatory burdens of affirmative action requirements, the Department expects to foster increased competition and participation among contractors, particularly benefiting small and medium-sized businesses. This shift is expected to lead to lower Federal contracting costs, improved contractor performance, and a more efficient labor market, ultimately enhancing value for taxpayers while maintaining adherence to essential nondiscrimination laws.
The July 1, 2025 NPRM estimated that the regulations implementing E.O. 11246 imposed approximately $996.37 million
The Department retains this estimate in the final rule as a measure of direct, quantifiable compliance costs. Commenters did not dispute the underlying methodology or the resulting estimate. This estimate derives from case data covering FY 2022 through 2024 and reflects the estimated time burden for the regulated community associated with preparing and maintaining written AAPs, demographic and statistical analyses, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, third-party disclosure and data submission requirements, audit response and investigation costs, and monetary remedies associated with conciliation agreements.
In computing the value of contractor time, the Department generally used a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $99.11, which is consistent with prior analyses.
The final rule eliminates requirements applicable to approximately 101,850 covered supply and service contractor establishments.
The final rule eliminates compliance requirements applicable to approximately 9,982 construction contractors.
The E.O. 11246 regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.1(d)(4) permitted contractors to establish an AAP based on functional or
OFCCP estimates an average of 1,125 annual E.O. 11246 pre-complaint inquiry and complaint intake submissions and estimates that it takes an individual 0.26 hours to provide the intake information. This amounts to 295 total hours eliminated, valued at approximately $15,132.
Across all affected parties, based on the above analysis, the Department estimates that the final rule eliminates approximately 9,875,221 hours of annual burden. The 10-year quantifiable cost savings amount to $8,499,270,061 at a 3% discount rate or $6,998,112,173 at a 7% discount rate. Using a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 14192, the Department estimates that the annualized cost savings amount to $996,373,776 in 2024 dollars, using a 7 percent discount rate.
The Department also considered three additional categories of cost savings identified by commenters as illustrative of additional savings: (1) reduced litigation liability and risk; (2) improved hiring efficiency and labor productivity; and (3) reduced Federal procurement costs through increased competition. The Department does not have sufficient data to quantify these effects with precision but nonetheless believes they may be substantial. In the absence of comprehensive data, the Department relies on stated assumptions and provides illustrative estimates based on those assumptions to convey the potential magnitude of these beneficial effects.
The affirmative action regulatory regime created exposure to private litigation risk under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and analogous state laws. The Department believes that the required use of demographic classifications, placement goals, and race- or sex-conscious decision-making create additional avenues for legal challenge since these types of actions have been subject to judicial scrutiny and litigation alleging discrimination against non-minority or male employees.
Recent legal developments further increase forward-looking exposure. In
Industry estimates further suggest that the typical U.S. firm faces approximately a 12 percent probability of being subject to an employment-related lawsuit each year.
Commenters, including ABC, Independent Women, and CEI, reported that AAP compliance requirements lengthen hiring workflows by introducing additional procedural steps and documentation obligations, particularly in time-sensitive or deadline-driven occupations where managers would otherwise prefer speed. Commenters also reported that the requirements constrain managerial discretion in candidate selection and internal mobility.
These requirements may impose economic costs through three primary channels:
• Extended vacancies, resulting in foregone output or increased reliance on overtime;
• Delayed production or project completion, particularly in capital-intensive and project-based operations; and
• Labor misallocation, in which hiring frictions or procedural constraints lead to suboptimal worker-job matches and reduced productivity.
To estimate the scale of hiring subject to potential delay, the Department relies on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Job Openings and Labor Turnover Study (JOLTS).
In 2024, the annual average hires rate (hires in a month as a percentage of employment) was 3.4%.
•
•
This figure represents the baseline annual flow of hires at covered establishments potentially affected by regulation-induced hiring frictions.
Industry benchmarking indicates that median time-to-fill for non-executive positions is approximately 44 days, with average values above 50 days.
These practices include: (1) expanding outreach beyond passive job postings to additional sourcing channels (
Indeed, to comply with affirmative action obligations related to E.O. 11246 and prepare for potential OFCCP compliance evaluations, covered contractors are advised to undertake a number of time-intensive activities during recruitment. These include devoting additional time and resources to race-conscious recruitment efforts intended to increase the representation of particular demographic groups in applicant pools.
The Department does not assume that any single practice is required in every hiring decision; rather, the incremental delay estimates reflect the combined effect of compliance-oriented recruiting, screening, documentation, and review practices that E.O. 11246 regulations describe as integral to AAPs, and that contractors report implementing in order to satisfy those requirements in practice. For illustrative purposes, if, in the aggregate, these practices result in just one additional calendar day to fill each of the 13,056,000 annual hires among the approximately one-fifth of the U.S. workforce covered by the E.O. 11246 implementing regulations, there would result in 13,056,000 employee-days of extended vacancies.
To contextualize the magnitude of potential hiring delays, the Department converts median earnings into an implied daily labor value. The median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers are $1,235 in 2026.
Earnings is an intermediate result toward the goal of estimating worker surplus, which is a net value amount that accounts for the opportunity cost of time and effort. Bartik (2013)
Beyond vacancy duration, commenters, including state attorneys general, claimed that hiring practices that do not focus on merit can reduce match quality. Economic research suggests that mismatches between workers and job requirements can impose meaningful productivity costs. Empirical research on CEO-firm matching finds that mismatches between a firm's needs and the skills of its chief executive officer are associated with large productivity losses: in a sample of approximately 4,800 manufacturing firms across 42 countries, firms that had leaders whose skills were poorly aligned with firm needs exhibited productivity up to 20 percent lower than well-matched firms.
Public comments similarly described perceived inefficiencies associated with employment decisions based on demographic considerations rather than qualifications. Although these accounts are anecdotal and do not provide systematic evidence, they reflect broader concerns that hiring processes that deemphasize merit may lead to suboptimal worker-job matches and cause productivity losses. The Department does not attempt to quantify these losses but believes that they will be mitigated by this final rule.
Compliance obligations associated with AAP requirements impose fixed and quasi-fixed costs that do not scale proportionally with firm size. As ABC and other commenters noted, such regulatory costs tend to weigh more heavily on small and medium-sized firms, for which compliance expenses represent a larger share of revenues and managerial capacity. Economic theory and regulatory guidance recognize that such fixed costs can discourage entry and participation by smaller firms and may alter market structure over time.
When OFCCP established the written E.O. 11246 AAP thresholds in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the $50,000 contract threshold and 50-employee threshold were intended to exempt small businesses from detailed AAP requirements while focusing enforcement resources on larger contractors.
Public comments submitted during the rulemaking process suggest that regulatory burden has contributed to a decline in the number of small business contractors over the past decade.
A substantial body of empirical and theoretical research in auction theory and public procurement economics finds that reduced competition leads to higher prices, and that bidder participation is a central determinant of procurement outcomes. McAfee and McMillan (1987) establish in their foundational literature survey that increasing the number of bidders intensifies competition and reduces expected procurement costs across auction formats,
The Department cannot estimate a constant elasticity of price with respect to bidder participation because empirical studies reveal important nonlinear patterns in this relationship. Brannman, Klein, and Weiss (1987) demonstrate in their analysis of timber auctions that the price reduction from adding a second or third bidder substantially exceeds the effect of adding additional bidders beyond that point.
In recent fiscal years, total Federal contract obligations have averaged approximately $750 billion annually.
To the extent that fixed compliance costs reduce small business participation in Federal contracting, procurement prices may increase through reduced competitive pressure. Given the nonlinear relationship between bidder participation and prices documented in the empirical literature, even modest reductions in competition among marginal bidders can generate measurable price effects.
The Department expects that Human Resources Managers or Management Analysts at each contractor establishment may spend time becoming familiar with the provisions in the final rule. The Department estimates that it will take one hour for a Human Resources Manager or Management Analyst to read the final rule. This estimate likely overstates the actual burden of rule familiarization. Since the revocation of E.O. 11246 in January 2025, the Department has ceased enforcing the regulations. As a result, this final rule largely maintains the status quo, and in many cases may not require any review by regulated entities.
The Department estimates an average hourly wage rate of $99.11 based on a 60/40 split between Human Resources Managers ($77.15) and Management Analysts ($55.15), resulting in an average hourly wage of $68.35. The Department applies a 45 percent rate for fringe benefits and overhead costs, leading to a total hourly wage rate of $99.11 (= $68.35 × 1.45).
Consequently, the estimated burden for rule familiarization is 117,147 hours (= 107,165 supply and service establishments + 9,982 construction contractors × 1 hour). The total estimated cost is $11,610,439 (= 117,147 hours × $99.11/hour) in the first year. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized rule familiarization costs are estimated at:
The Department does not anticipate significant adjustment costs beyond rule familiarization, as rescission eliminates obligations rather than imposing new requirements. Contractors may choose to maintain certain employment practices previously undertaken for AAP compliance, but such practices would be voluntary and presumably
The Department estimates quantifiable cost savings of approximately $996.37 million annually from reduced paperwork and compliance burdens. Over a 10-year period, these savings are estimated at $8.5 billion using a 3 percent discount rate and $7.0 billion using a 7 percent discount rate. As discussed above, this estimate likely understates total compliance-related cost savings. In addition, the Department provides illustrative estimates of further economic benefits associated with rescission.
Costs associated with this rule are limited to rule familiarization, which the Department estimates at a one-time cost of $11.6 million. Annualized over a 10-year period, these costs are approximately $1.3 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $1.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate.
Overall, the Department concludes that the rule will generate substantial net benefits, even when considering only quantifiable savings, with additional unquantified benefits reinforcing this conclusion.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Department reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department has determined that a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required because this rule is not expected to have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Act directs agencies, where such impacts exist, to consider steps “to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes,” 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(6), reflecting Congress's concern with regulatory compliance burdens imposed on small entities.
This final rule has no compliance impacts on small entities and instead rescinds existing regulatory burdens, thereby eliminating associated reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and administrative costs. Small entities, including small Federal contractors and subcontractors, within the scope of the rescinded requirements may experience economic effects from this rule. However, those effects are expected to be beneficial due to burdens and barriers to participation being eliminated. Because the rule does not impose compliance obligations or associated costs of the type the RFA is designed to address and that agencies must take steps to “minimize,” the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
To comply with E.O. 14173, the Department modified OMB # 1250-0002, “Complaint Involving Employment Discrimination by a Federal Contractor or Subcontractor.”
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
The Department has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether the applicable standards are met or if it is unreasonable to meet one or more of these standards. The Department has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Sec. 201, Public Law 104-4 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.
The Department examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), the Department has determined that this final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). The Department has reviewed this final rule under the OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
The Department has examined this final rule and determined that it does not have any tribal implications under E.O. 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact statement. It does not “have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.”
This final rule ensures compliance with E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which directs OFCCP within the Department to immediately cease promoting “diversity,” holding Federal contractors and subcontractors responsible for taking “affirmative action,” and allowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. This final rule also ensures compliance with E.O. 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” E.O. 14398 prohibits contractors from racial discrimination in connection with work performed on contracts and places enforcement responsibility with procuring agencies rather than with the Department. This final rule is also consistent with E.O. 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which directs Federal agencies to modify regulations or policies that use the terms “gender” and “gender identity.” This final rule also aligns with E.O. 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which directs Federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate impact liability. Further, it supports the objectives of E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” E.O. 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” E.O. 14267, “Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations,”
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Investigations, Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government property, Government property management, Individuals with disabilities, Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Construction industry, Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Labor, Sex discrimination, Women.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Government property management, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Freedom of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Equal employment opportunity, Government procurement, Religious discrimination, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of E.O. 14173, 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025), the Department amends chapter 60 in title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
29 U.S.C. 793, as amended and 38 U.S.C. 4212, as amended.
This part provides the rules of practice for all administrative proceedings instituted by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), including but not limited to proceedings instituted against construction contractors or subcontractors, which relate to the enforcement of equal opportunity under the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA), as amended, and section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 503), as amended. In the absence of a specific provision, procedures shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Upon notice to all parties, the Administrative Law Judge may, with respect to matters pending before him, modify or waive any rule herein upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby.
In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued hereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government in which event it includes the next business day.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(i) Contain a statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and shall specifically admit, explain, or deny, each of the allegations of the complaint unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or
(ii) State that the defendant admits all the allegations of the complaint.
(2) The answer may contain a waiver of hearing; and if not, a separate paragraph in the answer shall request a hearing.
(3) The answer shall contain the name and address of the defendant, or of the attorney representing the defendant.
(4) Failure to file an answer or to plead specifically to any allegation of the complaint shall constitute an admission of such allegation.
(c)
The Administrative Law Judge shall respond to defendant's request for a hearing within 15 days and shall serve a notice of prehearing conference on the parties. The notice shall contain the time and place of the conference.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Denying specifically the matter as to which an admission is requested; or
(2) Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny such matters.
(c)
(a) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and/or permit the party, or someone acting on his behalf, to inspect and copy any unprivileged documents, phonorecords, and other compilations, including computer tapes and printouts which contain or may lead to relevant information and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served. If necessary, translation of data compilations shall be done by the party furnishing the information.
(b) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to permit entry upon designated property which may be relevant to the issues in the proceeding and, which is in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection, measuring, surveying or photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or area.
(c) Each request shall set forth with reasonable particularity the items to be inspected and shall specify a reasonable time and place for making the inspection and performing the related acts.
(d) The party upon whom the request is served shall respond within 25 days after the service of the request. The response shall state, with respect to each item, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless there are objections, in which case the reasons for each objection shall be stated. The party submitting the request may move for an order with respect to any objection or to other failure to respond.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.
(2) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or was designated to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency which is a party may be used by the adverse party for any purpose.
(3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Administrative Law Judge finds:
(i) That the witness is dead; or
(ii) That the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or
(iii) That the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
(iv) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable to allow the deposition to be used.
(4) If only part of a deposition is introduced in evidence by a party, any party may introduce any other parts by way of rebuttal and otherwise.
(f)
(a) Upon his own motion or the motion of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge may direct the parties or their counsel to meet with him for a conference to consider:
(1) Simplification of the issues;
(2) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitation;
(3) Stipulations, admissions of fact and of contents and authenticity of documents;
(4) Limitation of number of witnesses;
(5) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits; and
(6) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceedings.
(b) The record shall show the matters disposed of by order and by agreement in such pretrial conferences. The subsequent course of the proceeding shall be controlled by such action.
(a)
(b)
(1) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
(2) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;
(3) That any further procedural steps are waived; and
(4) That any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement is waived.
(c)
(1) Submit the proposed agreement to the Administrative Law Judge for his consideration; and
(2) Inform the Administrative Law Judge that agreement cannot be reached.
(d)
Hearings shall be held before an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor who shall be designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor. After commencement of the proceeding but prior to the designation of an Administrative Law Judge, pleadings and papers shall be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
The Administrative Law Judge shall propose findings and conclusions to the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) on the basis of the record. In order to do so, he shall have the duty to conduct a fair hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. He shall have all powers necessary to those ends, including, but not limited to, the power to:
(a) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding by consent of the parties or upon his own motion;
(b) Require parties to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding;
(c) Require parties to produce for examination those relevant witnesses and documents under their control; and require parties to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions in full;
(d) Administer oaths;
(e) Rule on motions, and other procedural items or matters pending before him;
(f) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of participants therein;
(g) Examine and cross-examine witnesses, and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;
(h) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence and limit lines of questioning or testimony which are irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious;
(i) Fix time limits for submission of written documents in matters before him and extend any time limits established by this part upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby;
(j) Impose appropriate sanctions against any party or person failing to obey an order under this part which may include:
(1) Refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting it from introducing designated matters in evidence;
(2) Excluding all testimony of an unresponsive or evasive witness, or determining that the answer of such witness, if given, would be unfavorable to the party having control over him; and
(3) Expelling any party or person from further participation in the hearing;
(k) Take official notice of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice;
(l) Recommend whether the respondent is in current violation of the order, regulations, or its contractual obligations, as well as the nature of the relief necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights secured by the order;
(m) Issue subpoenas; and
(n) Take any action authorized by this part.
(a)
(b)
(a) A party wishing to procure the appearance at the hearing of any person having personal or expert knowledge of the matters in issue shall serve on the prospective witness a notice, which may be accomplished by an administrative subpoena, setting forth the time, date, and place at which he is to appear for the purpose of giving testimony. The notice shall also set forth the categories of documents the witness is to bring with him to the hearing, if any. A copy of the notice shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge and additional copies shall be served upon the opposing parties.
(b) It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Due regard shall be given to the convenience of witnesses in scheduling their testimony so that they will be detained no longer than reasonably necessary.
(c) The party or prospective witness may file an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness.
In any hearing, decision, or administrative review conducted pursuant to this part, all evidentiary matters shall be governed by Office of Administrative Law Judges' Rules of evidence at 29 CFR part 18, subpart B.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Administrative Law Judge shall not consult any person, or party, on any fact in issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. No employee or agent of the Federal Government engaged in the investigation and prosecution of this case shall participate or advise in the rendering of the recommended or final decision in the case, except as witness or counsel in the proceeding.
Any party shall be entitled upon request to a reasonable period between the close of evidence and termination of the hearing for oral argument. Oral arguments shall be included in the official transcript of the hearing.
The official transcripts of testimony taken, together with any exhibits, briefs, or memorandums of law, shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge. Transcripts of testimony may be obtained from the official reporter by the parties and the public as provided in section 11(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770). Upon notice to all parties, the Administrative Law Judge may authorize such corrections to the transcript as are necessary to reflect accurately the testimony.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)(1) To the extent that proceedings hereunder involve employment of persons covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and compliance may necessitate a revision of such agreement, any labor organization which is a signatory to the agreement shall have the right to participate as a party.
(2) Other persons or organizations shall have the right to participate as parties if the final Administrative order could adversely affect them or the class they represent, and such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the proceedings.
(3) Any person or organization wishing to participate as a party under this section shall file with the Administrative Law Judge and serve on all parties a petition within 25 days after the commencement of the action or at such other time as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) Petitioner's interest in the proceedings;
(ii) Who will appear for petitioner;
(iii) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
(iv) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether each petitioner has the requisite interest in the proceedings and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interest, the Administrative Law Judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative to represent all such petitioners: Provided, That the representative of a labor organization qualifying to participate under paragraph (a)(1) of the section must be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge shall give each petitioner written notice of the decision on his petition; and if the petition is denied, he shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae. The Administrative Law Judge shall give written notice to each party of each petition granted.
(b)(1) Any other interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae shall file a petition before the commencement of the final hearing with the Administrative Law Judge. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) The petitioner's interest in the hearing;
(ii) Who will represent the petitioner; and
(iii) The issues on which petitioner intends to present argument. The Administrative Law Judge may grant the petition if he finds that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, and that such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the issues. An amicus curiae is not a party but may participate as provided in this section.
(2) An amicus curiae may present a brief oral statement at the hearing at the point in the proceeding specified by the Administrative Law Judge. He may submit a written statement of position to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the beginning of a hearing and shall serve a copy on each party. He may also submit a brief or written statement at such time as the parties submit briefs and exceptions, and he shall serve a copy on each party.
Within 20 days after receipt of the transcript of the testimony, each party and amicus may file a brief. Such briefs shall be served simultaneously on all parties and amici, and a certificate of service shall be furnished to the Administrative Law Judge. Requests for additional time in which to file a brief shall be made in writing, and copies shall be served simultaneously on the other parties. Requests for extensions shall be received not later than 3 days before the date such briefs are due. No reply brief may be filed except by special permission of the Administrative Law Judge.
The transcript of testimony, exhibits, and all papers, documents, and requests filed in the proceedings, including briefs, but excepting the correspondence section of the docket, shall constitute the record for decision.
Within a reasonable time after the filing of briefs, the Administrative Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a decision. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the record for recommended decision, to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for a final Administrative order. The recommended findings, conclusions, and decision shall be served on all parties and amici to the proceeding.
Within 14 days after receipt of the recommended findings, conclusions, and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said recommendation. These exceptions may be responded to by other parties within 14 days of their receipt by said parties. All exceptions and responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. Service of such briefs or exceptions and responses shall be made simultaneously on all parties to the proceeding. Requests to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for additional time in which to file exceptions and responses shall be in writing and copies shall be served simultaneously on other parties. Requests for extensions must be received no later than 3 days before the exceptions are due.
After expiration of the time for filing briefs and exceptions, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a decision, which shall be the Administrative order, on the basis of the record. The record shall consist of the record for recommended decision, the rulings and recommended decision of the Administrative Law Judge and the exceptions and briefs filed subsequent to the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
After expiration of the time for filing, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a decision which shall be served on all parties. If the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, concludes that the defendant has violated VEVRAA, section 503, the equal opportunity clauses at 41 CFR 60-300.5 or 60-741.5, the VEVRAA regulations in 41 CFR part 60-300, or section 503 regulations in 41 CFR part 60-741, an Administrative order shall be issued enjoining the violations, and requiring the contractor to provide whatever remedies are appropriate, and imposing whatever sanctions are appropriate, or any of the above. In any event, failure to comply with the Administrative order shall result in the immediate cancellation, termination, and suspension of the respondent's contracts and/or
Expedited hearings may be used, inter alia, when a contractor or subcontractor has violated a conciliation agreement; has not adopted and implemented an acceptable affirmative action program; has refused to give access to or to supply records or other information as required by the equal opportunity clause; or has refused to allow an on-site compliance review to be conducted.
(a) Expedited hearings shall be commenced by filing an administrative complaint in accordance with § 60-30.5. The complaint shall state that the hearing is subject to these expedited hearing procedures.
(b) The answer shall be filed in accordance with § 60-30.6(a) and (b).
(c) Failure to request a hearing within the 20 days provided by § 60-30.6(a) shall constitute a waiver of hearing, and all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted. If a hearing is not requested or is waived, within 25 days of the complaint's filing, the Administrative Law Judge shall adopt as findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint, and shall order the appropriate sanctions and/or penalties sought in the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge's findings and order shall constitute a final Administrative order, unless the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions to the findings and order within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions, the matter shall proceed in accordance with § 60-30.36.
(d) If a request for a hearing is received within 20 days as provided by § 60-30.6(a), the hearing shall be convened within 45 days of receipt of the request and shall be completed within 15 days thereafter, unless more hearing time is required.
(a) Any party may serve requests for admissions in accordance with § 60-30.9(b) and (c).
(b) Witness lists and hearing exhibits will be exchanged at least 10 days in advance of the hearing.
(c) For good cause shown, and upon motion made in accordance with § 60-30.8, the Administrative Law Judge may allow the taking of depositions. Other discovery will not be permitted.
(a) At the hearing, the Government shall be given an opportunity to demonstrate the basis for the request for sanctions and/or remedies, and the contractor shall be given an opportunity to show that the violation complained of did not occur and/or that good cause or good faith efforts excuse the alleged violations. Both parties shall be allowed to present evidence and argument and to cross-examine witnesses.
(b) The hearing shall be informal in nature, and the Administrative Law Judge shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.
Within 15 days after the hearing is concluded, the Administrative Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a decision. The Administrative Law Judge may permit the parties to file written post-hearing briefs within this time period, but the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations shall not be delayed pending receipt of such briefs. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the record, to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, for a final Administrative order. The recommended decision shall be served on all parties and amici to the proceeding.
Within 10 days after receipt of the recommended findings, conclusions and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said recommendations. Exceptions may be responded to by other parties within 7 days after receipt by said parties of the exceptions. All exceptions and responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor. Briefs or exceptions and responses shall be served simultaneously on all parties to the proceeding.
After expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall issue an Administrative order which shall be served on all parties. Unless the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, issues an Administrative order within 30 days after the expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision shall become a final Administrative order which shall become effective on the 31st day after expiration of the time for filing exceptions. Except as to specific time periods required in this section, § 60-30.30 shall be applicable to this section.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this part.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
Final rule.
The U.S. Department of Labor is revising its implementing regulations for Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Section 503). The revisions align the regulations with applicable law and recent executive orders, including Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” and Executive Order 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative.”
This rule is effective September 21, 2026, except for amendatory instruction 1 (amendment to 41 CFR part 60-30) which is effective on December 21, 2026.
Kenneth Wolfe, Director, OFCCP, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 202-693-0101. Email:
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) enforces Section 503, which prohibits covered Federal contractors and subcontractors (“contractors”)
On July 1, 2025, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Section 503 implementing regulations. 90 FR 28494 (July 1, 2025). In the NPRM, DOL proposed removing the implementing regulations' cross-references to Executive Order (E.O.) 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” which was revoked by E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” on January 21, 2025. For the reasons described in the background section below, DOL also proposed rescinding (1) the regulations at 41 CFR 60-741.42, which required contractors to ask applicants and employees to identify their disability status; (2) the related data collection requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.44(k); and (3) the utilization requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.45.
DOL has carefully reviewed public comments on these proposed changes. As set forth in the preamble below, DOL is largely adopting its NPRM revisions, with a clarification related to the requirement to measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts. Additionally, the final rule makes several necessary technical corrections to the regulations. Specifically, since the publication of the NPRM, the basic coverage threshold for Section 503 increased from $15,000 to $20,000 in accordance with the inflationary adjustment requirements in 41 U.S.C. 1908.
The Section 503 regulations' basic nondiscrimination and recordkeeping requirements apply to contractors with a government contract in excess of $20,000.
In 2013, DOL made extensive revisions to the regulations implementing Section 503, including major changes to the affirmative action provisions in 41 CFR part 60-741, subpart C.
The 2013 rule also modified the Section 503 regulatory requirement for contractors to inquire about an applicant or employee's disability status (hereinafter referred to as the “disability inquiry requirement”).
The 2013 rule also created additional data collection requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.44(k), which require contractors to document and maintain specific computations or comparisons pertaining to applicants and hires with disabilities. Additionally, the 2013 rule made several changes to conform the regulations with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008.
In the NPRM, DOL proposed rescinding the disability inquiry requirement at 41 CFR 60-741.42 and the related data collection requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.44(k). DOL also proposed rescinding the utilization goal requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.45. Consistent with these proposed changes, DOL also proposed removing various cross-references and language related to these requirements.
DOL also proposed removing the Section 503 regulations' cross-references to E.O. 11246, which was revoked by E.O. 14173 on January 21, 2025. For example, the Section 503 regulations, at 41 CFR 60-741.65(b), incorporated the E.O. 11246 administrative proceeding procedures at 41 CFR part 60-30. With the revocation of E.O. 11246, DOL proposed removing these cross-references and adding the administrative proceeding provisions directly into the Section 503 regulations. In a separate rulemaking, DOL proposed similar changes to the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) regulations. 90 FR 28485 (July 1, 2025). As the administrative proceeding procedures would be incorporated directly into the Section 503 and VEVRAA regulations, the 41 CFR part 60-30 regulations would be duplicative and unnecessary. Therefore, DOL also proposed rescinding 41 CFR part 60-30 using a delayed effective date.
In the NPRM, DOL identified several reasons for the proposed changes. Specifically, DOL provided that while the Section 503 regulations state that the use of quotas is prohibited, contractors may, in practice, be induced to use quotas to meet the utilization goal. DOL also detailed concerns that the disability inquiry requirement at 41 CFR 60-741.42 and utilization goal requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.45 were inconsistent with the ADA.
Further, DOL noted that the Section 503 utilization analysis requirements are now unworkable, as they are dependent on requirements promulgated under E.O. 11246, which was revoked. Specifically, 41 CFR 60-741.45(d)(2) requires contractors to conduct the utilization analysis using the same job groups established for their analyses under E.O. 11246. The utilization goal also requires knowledge of disability status, which results in impermissible disability inquiries under the ADA. In addition, the utilization analysis and disability inquiry requirements are not required by the statutory text of Section 503.
On July 1, 2025, DOL published an NPRM in the
DOL received 651 comment submissions in response to the NPRM.
DOL received numerous comments addressing the need for the rulemaking. Some commenters questioned the need for the rulemaking, asserting that DOL's concerns about the disability inquiry and utilization goal requirements were speculative or unsupported by evidence. For example, several commenters disagreed with DOL's assertion that the utilization goal could, in practice, induce the use of quotas. Commenters cited the current regulations' express prohibition on quotas found at 41 CFR 60-741.45(h) and past agency guidance that highlighted the prohibition against quotas. Commenters also stated that contractors were not penalized for failing to meet the goal and asserted that even if the goal resulted in a quota, a person without a disability would not have standing to challenge the goal.
DOL disagrees with these comments. As set forth in section III(A)(2) below, the current regulatory framework is not supported by the statutory text of Section 503, and conflicts with the plain text of the ADA's nondiscrimination standards, which are incorporated into the Rehabilitation Act.
Further, while some commenters claimed that DOL's concerns over the disability inquiry and utilization requirements were speculative or unsupported by evidence, DOL's past enforcement of these requirements supports the need for the rulemaking. Since implementing the revised Section 503 regulations in 2013, DOL received numerous inquiries from stakeholders about the permissibility of the disability inquiry in light of privacy concerns. While failing to meet the utilization goal is not a violation in itself, DOL routinely issued violations if contractors failed to conduct the utilization analysis or failed to execute “action-oriented programs” to address underutilization of individuals with disabilities, as set forth in 41 CFR 60-741.45. Since fiscal year 2020, DOL issued over 75 violations related to these issues. Contractors therefore faced a non-speculative risk of enforcement if they did not conduct utilization analyses, which as a practical matter required employer-initiated inquiries into applicants' and employees' disability status. As explained above, DOL can no longer enforce a disability inquiry requirement—or utilization analysis requirement that relies on the data yielded from such inquiries—that it interprets as conflicting with the ADA.
DOL also received comments from various stakeholders who agreed with the need for the rulemaking. One commenter, who identified himself as an individual with a disability, stated that he had deep concerns about the way the current regulatory framework has been applied in practice. This commenter explained that the disability inquiry requirement has not created meaningful progress and believed that the disability data contractors obtained through this process was unreliable because many employees with non-obvious disabilities, including the commenter, often chose not to disclose their disability status for various reasons, including stigmatization or the fact that they did not trust the process to result in real change. This commenter also discussed the ineffectiveness of the utilization goal and stated that in practice, companies treat this requirement as a “box-checking exercise.” This commenter stated that “the focus is on compliance paperwork, not dismantling the systemic barriers that keep people with disabilities from being hired, promoted, or retained equitably.”
In this same vein, another commenter, a lawyer, also believed that the disability inquiry requirement lacked utility. He also disagreed with the utilization goal. He believed that the goal was poorly constructed, as the goal applied uniformly to all job groups, even though individuals with disabilities are typically not distributed uniformly across job groups. The commenter also expressed concerns about the burden imposed by these requirements and the liability concerns pertaining to recruitment and hiring managers improperly using disability information.
Another commenter, a 501(c)(3) research and education foundation, urged adherence to the plain text of the ADA. This commenter agreed that DOL's proposed changes in the NPRM address ongoing conflicts between the Rehabilitation Act's goals and the privacy protections central to the ADA, and clarify compliance expectations, reduce administrative burdens on contractors, and ensure that protections for individuals with disabilities remain robust yet consistent with merit-based employment principles.
The NPRM expressed DOL's concerns that the disability inquiry requirement is inconsistent with the ADA and that the utilization goal, as structured, depends on that unlawful disability inquiry framework. After considering the comments related to these issues, DOL concludes that these concerns are well founded and that the NPRM reflects the best interpretation of the governing Section 503 framework.
The ADA's prohibitions apply directly to Federal contractors because as an employer a Federal contractor is a “covered entity” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 12111(2). With respect to job applicants, the ADA's text is clear: “a covered entity shall not . . . make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A). Yet, under section 60-741.42(a) of the Section 503 regulations, a contractor “shall invite applicants to inform the contractor whether the applicant believes that he or she is an individual with a disability.” Although “shall invite” frames the disability inquiry requirement as an “invitation” for applicants to “self-identify” disability status, this is a requirement imposed on the contractor. Describing the applicant's response as “voluntary” does not alter the legal character of these requirements. The inconsistency is plain. DOL's existing regulations require contractors to make disability inquiries that the ADA explicitly forbids.
With respect to employees, the ADA's text is once again clear: a “covered entity shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability . . . unless such . . . inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A). Yet, the Section 503 regulations at 41 CFR 60-741.42(c) require a contractor to invite employees “to voluntarily inform the contractor whether the employee believes that he or she is an individual with a disability,” without any limitation or caveat for the invitation to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Employers' invitations to applicants and employees to disclose disabilities under section 60-741.42(a) and (c) constitute “inquiries” prohibited by 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A) and 12112(d)(4)(A). Labeling the disclosures as “voluntary” does not alter the mandatory nature of the employer's obligation to inquire about disability status. The ADA regulates the employer's act of asking, not the act of answering. Courts have distinguished between information voluntarily disclosed by an employee on their own initiative and information elicited by employer questioning—only the former falls outside the scope of 42 U.S.C. 12112(d). For example, in
Likewise, in
Although some commenters contended that the post-offer disability inquiry requirement for affirmative action purposes was consistent with the ADA's business necessity exception at 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A), DOL agrees with other commenters who observed that it is difficult to characterize a general invitation to disclose disability status as universally “job-related” or for reasons of “business necessity.”
Further, as one commenter noted, eliminating the disability inquiry requirement and utilization goal would neither diminish a contractor's statutory obligations under Section 503 nor prevent a contractor from complying with those obligations. Contractors complied with Section 503's statutory requirements for affirmative action prior to the addition of the utilization goal in the 2013 rule, and they will be able to do so after DOL's rescission of this requirement.
Apart from mandatory disability inquiries, as commenters noted, contractors may still comply with their Section 503 obligations by using several measures that do not depend on knowledge of a particular applicant's or employee's disability status. For example, contractors could conduct skills-based barrier analysis and remediation in which the contractor reviews job position descriptions, vacancies, job requirements, and physical/mental standards in order to eliminate requirements and tasks that are not essential to performing the job (
Further, if a contractor learns of an applicant's or an employee's disability without asking—for example, through unsolicited disclosure during the interview process or a request for reasonable accommodation—then the contractor may take additional affirmative action to “employ or advance in employment” that individual consistent with Section 503.
Some commenters claimed there was no conflict between the ADA and the disability inquiry and utilization requirements. But, as discussed above, DOL's authority under Section 503 must be governed by the ADA's nondiscrimination standards, which are expressly incorporated into Section 503. 29 U.S.C. 793(d). The ADA clearly provides that an employer may not, prior to an offer of employment, make any disability-related inquiries of job applicants, even if that inquiry is related to the job. 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A). The ADA also clearly provides that, after an employee starts a job, an employer may make disability-related inquiries only if such inquiries are job-related and consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A). But, under 41 CFR 60-741.42, contractors must ask applicants and employees about their disability status. In order for a contractor to measure progress towards or achievement of a utilization “goal” under 41 CFR 60-741.45, the contractor must know or determine which employees have disabilities. These requirements create an unworkable framework under the ADA.
Some commenters argued that the ADA is ineffective in advancing the employment of individuals with disabilities. Even if true, this argument would not justify interpreting Section 503 to mandate disability inquiries that the ADA explicitly prohibits. DOL should not be requiring contractors to take actions that contravene the plain language of the ADA's statutory text.
Several commenters pointed to
Because Section 503 explicitly incorporates the ADA's standards,
The district court in
The structure of 42 U.S.C. 12112 reinforces this reading and forecloses an implied “affirmative action” exception. What is allowed or not depends on whether the inquiry is made pre-offer, post-offer, or after an individual begins employment. Subsections (2) and (4), covering pre-offer and post-employment inquiries, both begin with a statement of prohibited activities, followed by a set of exceptions. In paragraph (4)(B), an exception from the ban on post-employment inquiries and examinations is made for “voluntary medical examinations . . . which are part of an employee health program.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B). There is no similar exception for pre-offer inquiries: the only exception is for “inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(B). The mention of an exception for voluntary examinations in one section, but not the other, means Congress knew how to make such an exception, but chose not to. DOL therefore declines to read it into the statute by implication.
Regardless of the original objectives revealed through the legislative history of the Rehabilitation Act generally, and Section 503 specifically, and regardless of what interpretation of Section 503 might have been plausible if the ADA had never been enacted, Congress subsequently incorporated the ADA's Title I nondiscrimination standards into the Rehabilitation Act.
DOL agrees with a commenter who argued that “since the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA both address discrimination against individuals with disabilities, the two statutes are
Several commenters challenged DOL's interpretation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations implementing the ADA. After considering those arguments, DOL continues to conclude that the NPRM sets forth the best interpretation of Section 503 in light of the ADA and its implementing regulations. The ADA establishes a comprehensive framework governing employer disability-related inquiries at different stages of the employment relationship. 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)-(4). These provisions prohibit disability-related inquiries except in the narrow circumstances specified by the statute.
Read together, 29 CFR 1630.13 and 1630.14 provide that: (1) except in narrow circumstances related to the reasonable accommodation process,
The Section 503 regulations at 60-741.42(a), however, require contractors to “invite” applicants to disclose whether they are individuals with disabilities at the pre-offer stage, thereby mandating an inquiry at a point where 29 CFR 1630.13 and 1630.14 permit none. Section 60-741.42(c) likewise requires contractors to “invite” current employees to disclose disability status on a recurring basis, without any requirement that such inquiry be job-related or consistent with business necessity. In both instances, the regulation compels employer-initiated disability-status inquiries at stages where the ADA regulations either categorically prohibit such inquiries or permit them only under conditions not incorporated into 41 CFR 60-741.42.
Given the ADA regulations' careful limitations on disability-related inquiries—particularly the categorical prohibition at the pre-offer stage and the business-necessity requirement for inquiries after employment begins, DOL agrees with the commenters who urged removal of the disability inquiry requirement. Rescission of this requirement ensures that the Section 503 regulations do not compel conduct
One commenter asserted “that the ADA regulations at 29 CFR 1630.15(e) already provide that employers are not liable for violations of the ADA for actions they are required to take by other federal statutes or regulations.” But that provision does not eliminate the underlying statutory question. Rather, section 1630.15(e) merely provides contractors with a potential defense to liability for a charge of discrimination; it does not expand the scope of what the ADA substantively permits, nor does it authorize another agency to require conduct inconsistent with the ADA's nondiscrimination standards, which Section 503 expressly incorporates.
Moreover, the existence of such a defense is not a reason to retain regulations that place contractors in the position of having to invoke it. Agencies should not structure regulatory regimes in a manner that requires regulated entities to rely on an interagency conflict defense to avoid liability. The better course is to interpret and implement Section 503 in harmony with the ADA's statutory limits so that contractors are not compelled to choose between compliance with DOL regulations and adherence to the ADA's substantive prohibitions.
DOL is not prohibiting contractors from exercising their own legal and business judgment about making disability inquiries consistent with the ADA and its implementing regulations. Instead, DOL simply no longer requires that contractors do so as part of their affirmative action or other obligations under Section 503.
DOL's rescission of the disability inquiry requirement would not cause regulatory confusion, as some commenters suggest, because the elimination of this requirement, as contemplated herein, will bring DOL in alignment with the EEOC and its treatment of ADA regulations. When pursuing a Section 503 discrimination violation, the Secretary of Labor is also charged with ensuring that DOL's standards do not conflict with the ADA, which is expressly incorporated into Section 503. 29 U.S.C. 793(d)-(e).
In the NPRM, DOL disagreed with the 2013 rule's reliance on past EEOC guidance to support the disability inquiry requirement. Specifically, the 2013 rule asserted that EEOC's Title I Technical Assistance Manual and an informal discussion letter from EEOC's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) permitted the disclosure of disability information for affirmative action purposes.
The OLC letter is also unpersuasive on its own terms. As one commenter who previously served as a senior advisor to the EEOC General Counsel explained, the letter does not engage in statutory analysis and its conclusion conflicts with the plain text of the ADA, which explicitly prohibits all pre-offer employer inquiries into disability status and permits post-employment inquiries only where they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A), (4)(A). Further, though courts are to give “due respect” to an agency's interpretation of a statute, that commenter noted that such interpretations are not entitled to judicial deference.
As commenters observed, EEOC interpretive guidance provides that “inviting individuals to identify themselves as individuals with disabilities as required to satisfy the affirmative action requirements of section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act is not restricted by” the ADA's prohibition on pre-offer disability inquiries.
The ADA's text is unequivocal: a covered employer “shall not . . . make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(2)(A). This prohibition is categorical and contains no exception for affirmative action. Congress enacted the ADA against the backdrop of existing affirmative action obligations under Section 503, yet it did not include any carveout permitting pre-offer disability inquiries in furtherance of those obligations. To the contrary, the ADA must control the best reading of Section 503, because the latter incorporates the standards of the former.
Nor does the characterization of such inquiries as “voluntary self-identification” alter the analysis. The statute regulates the employer's conduct—“mak[ing] inquiries”—not the applicant's obligation to respond. Even if an applicant may decline to answer, the employer has still posed a prohibited question. The ADA does not provide an exception for inquiries that an applicant is free to ignore, and DOL declines to read one into the statute.
DOL also disagrees with the premise that such inquiries fall outside the scope of section 12112(d)(2)(A) based on their asserted purpose. The statutory text does not distinguish between inquiries made for discriminatory screening and those made for data collection or compliance purposes. Instead, Congress adopted a bright-line rule prohibiting pre-offer disability inquiries altogether, while permitting more flexibility at later stages of the employment process.
Recent Supreme Court precedent reinforces the need to adhere to the statute's best reading. In
Accordingly, DOL does not adopt or defer to EEOC enforcement guidance to the extent it suggests that pre-offer disability inquiries are permissible when made for affirmative action purposes under Section 503. To the extent there is tension between the ADA's prohibition and regulatory approaches that rely on applicant self-identification, that tension must be resolved in a manner consistent with the statutory text enacted by Congress.
The same conclusion applies to other EEOC statements and guidance that suggest disability inquiries are permitted for affirmative action purposes, including EEOC's 1995 Title I Technical Assistance Manual and its July 27, 2000, Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees under the ADA. Like other subregulatory guidance predating
Ultimately, many commenters pointed to no text in the ADA supporting their position and instead relied on subregulatory EEOC guidance. The suggestion that DOL may interpret only Section 503 while disregarding the ADA prohibitions is unpersuasive. As discussed above, DOL has an obligation to administer Section 503 consistent with other applicable federal statutes. Section 503 does not operate in isolation, and DOL must interpret and implement it in tandem with the ADA. As other commenters observed, due to the overlapping subject matter of the ADA and Section 503, the two statutes should be read together. When reading these statutes together, DOL adopts the best reading of the text and will not defer to contrary subregulatory guidance.
Many commenters argued that soliciting disability data through disability inquiries is useful to contractors in advancing affirmative action. DOL acknowledges those views but concludes that Congress has already made a policy determination in enacting the ADA to protect individual privacy by limiting employer-initiated disability inquiries. Other commenters emphasized that the ADA serves, in part, to shield applicants and employees from potentially invasive questioning and from the risk that disability information will influence employment decisions. One commenter, drawing on experience as an OFCCP practitioner, noted that individuals with observable disabilities often feel they have no meaningful choice but to disclose their disability status, while individuals with non-obvious disabilities report disclosing only out of concern that failure to do so might be perceived as dishonesty.
Although contractors are required to keep disability disclosures confidential and not use them in employment decisions, confidentiality requirements do not eliminate the practical pressures or risk of distress that individuals may experience when presented with an employer-initiated request to disclose disability status. Because DOL does not believe that the collection of disability information is necessary for contractors to satisfy their statutory affirmative action obligations under Section 503, it concludes that the privacy interests reflected in the ADA outweigh the asserted utility of collecting disability data.
Commenters also asserted that the disability data assists contractors with reviewing their job qualifications and employment practices for Section 503 compliance. For example, one commenter asserted that disability data helps contractors conduct barrier analyses where they can “assess whether there are potential compliance gaps or barriers to equal employment opportunity.” But contractors can—and should—review their practices, job qualifications, and advancement opportunities as part of their ongoing equal employment opportunity compliance functions regardless of whether disability-status data has been collected. Such reviews need not depend on knowledge of which individuals have disabilities. Contractors remain free to analyze potential barriers by job category and to ensure accessibility and compliance with equal employment opportunity requirements without asking employees or applicants to disclose their disability status.
Some commenters cited ADA provisions at 42 U.S.C. 12201(a) and (b), which govern statutory construction, to argue that DOL's disability inquiry requirement can override or is otherwise exempt from the ADA's limitation on employer inquiries of applicants' and employees' disabilities status. DOL disagrees.
Several commenters characterized section 12201(a) as generally providing that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act should be construed with reference to each other and argued that, as a result, DOL may not rescind the Section 503 regulations' requirement that contractors inquire into applicants' disability status under 41 CFR 60-741.42. Several commenters asserted: “Reading the ADA and Rehabilitation Act together makes clear that the ADA's pre-offer inquiry bar is a term of art that does not apply to Section 503 self-identification forms, which are kept separate from an applicant or employee's personnel file.” The commenters did not identify any term that they contend is a “term of art” because there are none. Section 12112(d)(2)(A)'s pre-offer inquiry bar is not a term of art, but a statutory prohibition, entitled “Prohibited examination or inquiry,” that governs inquiries to job applicants no matter the form in which they are made. Consistent with ordinary meaning principles, statutory terms are interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning unless Congress indicates otherwise. Nothing in the ADA suggests that “inquiries” or any other relevant term carries a specialized meaning that would exclude employer-initiated requests for information about disability status.
Some commenters also argued that section 12201(a) “preserves” or effectively “locks in” Section 503 regulations, but they did not explain how the statutory text supports this conclusion. Section 12201(a) provides that “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 790
The proper comparison under section 12201(a), therefore, is whether construing section 12112(d)(2)(A) to prohibit preemployment employer-initiated disability inquiries results in either a “lesser standard” of protection against discrimination or in a lesser degree of privacy protection than the standards applied under the Rehabilitation Act or its regulations. It does not. The ADA's limitation on disability-related inquiries is itself a substantive protection for individuals. A regulatory requirement that contractors inquire into applicants' disability status does not provide greater or equal protection in these respects.
The commenters' reliance on
The commenters read section 12201(a) to invert its function. The provision requires “constru[ing] the ADA to grant at least as much protection as provided by the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act.”
Several commenters also asserted that the disability inquiry requirements are preserved by 42 U.S.C. 12201(b), which provides that nothing in the ADA “shall be construed to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any Federal law . . . that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than are afforded by this chapter.” The Department has considered this argument and does not find it persuasive.
First, section 12201(b) is a rule of statutory construction that preserves the “remedies, rights, and procedures” provided in other “Federal laws.” It does not extend to every regulatory mechanism that an agency may adopt to implement those laws. Section 503 requires covered contractors to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. 793. That said, it does not mandate any particular method for achieving those objectives, such as employer-initiated inquiries into disability status and utilization goals that depend on such inquiries. The disability inquiry requirements are therefore regulatory choices, not statutory commands. This distinction is reinforced by Congress's drafting: in section 12201(a), Congress expressly provided that the “no lesser standard” provision applies with respect to “regulations,” but it did not include such language in section 12201(b). Accordingly, section 12201(b) preserves the continued validity of Section 503 itself, not specific regulatory approaches that go beyond the statute's text.
Second, section 12201(b) does not authorize regulatory requirements that conflict with the ADA's express prohibitions. As explained above, the ADA establishes clear limitations on disability-related inquiries by employers, including a categorical ban against pre-offer inquiries and strict conditions on inquiries of employees. A savings clause such as section 12201(b) does not create exceptions to these limitations or permit agencies to mandate conduct that the ADA explicitly forbids. Rather, it merely ensures that the ADA is not interpreted to displace other Federal statutes that protect individuals with disabilities. It does not operate as an independent grant of authority to impose requirements inconsistent with the ADA's substantive protections.
Third, the Department is not persuaded that the disability inquiry requirement constitutes “greater or equal protection” within the meaning of section 12201(b). The ADA's limitations on employer-initiated disability-related inquiries are themselves substantive protections designed to safeguard individual privacy and reduce the risk of discrimination. A requirement that compels employers to solicit disability information diminishes, rather than enhances, those protections. While commenters contended that the collection of disability data may support broader affirmative action objectives, section 12201(b) calls for a comparison of the legal protections for the “rights of individuals.” Section 12201(b) does not call for an abstract assessment of policy benefits. Ultimately, the ADA's express limits on employer-initiated disability inquiries reflect a deliberate policy choice by Congress. DOL is obliged to give effect to that judgment, not to second-guess it by substituting DOL's own determination of what types of employer-initiated disability inquiries should be permitted. DOL therefore does not conclude that the disability inquiry requirement provides greater or equal protection than the ADA's restrictions.
Finally, as previously discussed in more detail, contractors may still comply with Section 503's affirmative action obligations using measures that do not depend on knowledge of a particular applicant's or employee's disability status.
Although many commenters urged DOL to maintain the existing disability inquiry requirement, several commenters proposed alternative frameworks for this requirement. Some commenters suggested that DOL impose the requirement only for the post-offer period, or convert the requirement into a voluntary option. As explained above, DOL is not prohibiting contractors from voluntarily exercising their own legal and business judgment about making disability status inquiries at the post-offer stage, if they believe such inquiries comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations. DOL is, however, no longer requiring that contractors conduct such inquiries as part of their affirmative action obligations under Section 503. The same is true for pre-employment inquiries: if a contractor believes there is a lawful basis under the ADA and its regulations to collect disability information, then DOL is not forbidding that practice—DOL is simply no longer going to require it. At their own discretion and without being prompted by an employer, employees and applicants are still permitted to disclose their disability status at any point in the hiring or employment process (
One commenter stated that any conflict with the ADA could be resolved
Other commenters urged DOL and the EEOC to adopt joint regulations clarifying the circumstances in which pre-employment disability inquiries are permitted. Since DOL is removing the disability inquiry requirement, DOL does not believe that joint regulations are necessary or appropriate. By rescinding the disability inquiry requirement, DOL eliminates any asserted tension and does not consider it proper to initiate joint rulemaking on a requirement it is no longer imposing on contractors.
Some commenters requested DOL maintain the CC-305 form, which contractors were previously required to use when requesting the disability information.
One commenter argued that other DOL requirements go beyond the text of the ADA, citing medical examinations that may be authorized under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements. This objection is misplaced. The cited authorities govern employees, not applicants, and thus operate only in the employment context or in the post-offer stage. The ADA draws a clear distinction between stages of employment: although it categorically prohibits disability-related inquiries at the pre-offer stage, it permits medical examinations and certain inquiries after an offer of employment, subject to certain conditions, as well as during employment when they are job-related and consistent with business necessity or part of an employee health program. The medical examinations referenced by the commenter fall within those permissible contexts. Accordingly, the commenter's examples do not present a conflict with the ADA's restrictions and do not undermine DOL's position.
Several commenters believed that the proposed changes would weaken employment discrimination protections for individuals with disabilities. Some commenters were also concerned that the NPRM, if finalized, would decrease employment and economic opportunities or undo recent advancements for the disability community, including disabled veterans. Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed changes would signal that hiring individuals with disabilities is not a priority or discourage other countries from working towards disability inclusion. Several commenters also asserted that there were several benefits to the voluntary self-identification and data collection requirements, citing their belief that these requirements increased awareness of the ADA definitions, destigmatized disabilities, encouraged inclusive work environments, and signaled that employers were open to hiring, advancing or reasonably accommodating workers with disabilities. Some commenters believed that DOL's past enforcement of the regulations was effective and consistent with the administration's focus on expanding labor force participation. Commenters were also concerned that the proposed changes would conceal discrimination in workplaces and reduce accountability and transparency for contractors.
DOL reviewed these concerns and believes they are unfounded and unpersuasive. The rescinded provisions are limited to specific affirmative action requirements that conflict with the clear statutory text of the ADA and weaken the ADA's privacy protections by forcing contractors to inquire about disability status. The regulations' non-discrimination provisions remain intact, where contractors are still prohibited from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of their physical or mental disability. Contractors are still subject to other provisions in the regulations such as the recordkeeping requirements, various requirements in Subpart C (
Ultimately, the above commenters argued that the disability inquiry requirement and utilization goal produce beneficial policy outcomes. Even assuming these claimed effects were accurate, they would not alter DOL's conclusion. Agencies may not retain the unlawful disability inquiry requirement and related analyses based on perceived policy benefits. As explained above, the ADA expressly limits disability-related inquiries by employers. DOL regulations that require contractors to solicit disability status from applicants or employees plainly violate those statutory restrictions. Where a regulation conflicts with the plain text of a statute, the agency lacks authority to maintain the regulation regardless of any asserted policy benefit. DOL cannot preserve the disability inquiry and utilization provisions based on commenters' policy preferences when those provisions are inconsistent with the ADA's statutory requirements.
DOL also received several comments on the NPRM's potential impact on reasonable accommodation procedures. Commenters believed that the proposed changes would take away the right to request reasonable accommodations, reduce the number of qualified individuals with disabilities who request reasonable accommodations, or make it more difficult for qualified individuals with a disability to request and receive reasonable accommodations. Some commenters believed that the disability inquiry requirement should be retained because employers need disability information to make reasonable accommodations.
In response, DOL notes that the NPRM did not propose, and the final rule does not make, changes to the reasonable accommodation requirements.
One commenter also stated that the NPRM “eliminates the requirement for contractors to conduct self-audits of their hiring, promotion, and compensation practices to evaluate inclusion of individuals with disabilities. This means contractors will no longer need to examine whether their practices are producing discriminatory outcomes or take steps to address shortfalls.” For clarification, DOL relied on the now-rescinded E.O. 11246 to require contractors to conduct in-depth analyses of their employment practices including hiring, pay, and compensation. The Section 503 regulations never included this requirement. Rather, the Section 503 regulations require contractors to use their utilization analyses to determine “whether and where impediments to equal employment opportunity exist” and “to develop and execute action-oriented programs” designed to correct any identified problem areas.
In the NPRM and the final rule, contractors meeting the AAP thresholds are still required to design and implement an audit and reporting system, which differs from the requirements referenced by the commenter.
A few commenters believed that the proposed changes would hinder DOL's or researchers' ability to analyze workforce data on the employment of individuals with disabilities. However, these commenters misunderstand the use and purpose of the data collection requirements. Applicants and employees submitted the CC-305 form to the contractor, not DOL. The prescribed CC-305 form indicated that contractors were soliciting disability information for the purpose of measuring their progress towards the 7 percent utilization goal.
Lastly, commenters expressed concern that the proposed changes could impact the enforcement or interpretation of other laws or policies such as VEVRAA or Schedule A hiring in federal agencies. DOL notes that this final rule pertains to the Section 503 regulations only. The revisions to Section 503's implementing regulations do not extend to other programs such as VEVRAA, which relates to protected veterans, or the Federal Government's Schedule A hiring program, which are outside the scope of this final rule.
That said, DOL intends to clarify its view on one issue raised by a few commenters who suggested that the Section 503 disability inquiry requirement is comparable to the self-identification requirements in the VEVRAA regulations. For example, one such commenter asserted that “VEVRAA depends on the same foundational ideas that [41 CFR 60-741] is built on. Challenging the authority to self-identify disabilities [under Section 503] seems like it necessarily brings into question the legality of the disabled veterans category [under VEVRAA].” DOL disagrees for several reasons.
First, under the VEVRAA regulations, 41 CFR 60-300.42(a) requires contractors to invite applicants during the pre-offer stage to disclose protected veteran status, but not the particular category thereof.
Second, although the invitation that occurs at the post-offer stage does
In contrast, under VEVRAA, “disabled veteran” is defined more broadly as: (1) A veteran of the U.S. military, ground, naval or air service who is entitled to compensation (or who but for the receipt of military retired pay would be entitled to compensation) under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; or (2) a person who was discharged or released from active duty because of a service-connected disability. 41 CFR 60-300.2(i). This category is not coextensive with the category of individuals who meet the ADA's definition of disability. It may include, for instance, individuals with service-connected conditions that do not “substantially limit” a major life activity—and thus would not satisfy the ADA definition—but nonetheless render individuals unfit for the specific military duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating.
Some commenters asserted that “Individuals with disabilities have historic reliance on voluntary self identification and the 7% utilization goal, so phasing it out without a hearing is a due process violation,” citing
Commenters also cited
DOL also disagrees that there is a reliance interest in the disability inquiry and utilization goal regulations. Individuals do not have a legitimate reliance interest in being asked whether they have a disability by a prospective or current employer. The commenters did not explain what individuals with disabilities have done in reliance upon the expectation that they would be asked whether they have a disability. If an individual wishes to disclose that information, nothing in this rule prevents him or her from voluntarily doing so without being asked, such as in the course of requesting a reasonable accommodation.
Nor is there any legitimate reliance interest in the utilization goal. The utilization goal does not guarantee employment, advancement, accommodation, or any other benefit to any individual with a disability. It does not create any entitlement or preference for any particular applicant or employee. Rather, the utilization goal functions as a management tool used by contractors to evaluate their overall affirmative action efforts. Because it does not confer any individual right or benefit, commenters have not identified any concrete reliance interest. And as explained above, commenters have not explained what employees have done in reliance on the expectation that contractors would use the utilization goal to evaluate their affirmative action efforts.
In lieu of rescinding the utilization goal, commenters suggested that DOL modify the regulations at 41 CFR 60-741.5 to further clarify the prohibition against quotas or to institute an annual certification requirement for contractors to certify that they are not using quotas. Commenters also suggested various alternatives to rescinding the utilization goal such as increasing or decreasing the goal; adopting a flexible, non-binding goal; adopting diagnostic reference points in lieu of a goal; increasing the employee threshold required to trigger the goal; instituting a hiring benchmark; or moving the utilization provisions to the regulations' Appendices, which provide guidelines contractors can choose to implement to promote equal employment opportunity for individuals with disabilities.
DOL considered these alternatives and declines to retain the utilization goal and related analyses in any form. First, given the rescission of the disability inquiry requirement, DOL views commenters' alternatives for assessing utilization as unworkable and therefore declines to adopt them in the final rule. Further, modifying the goal, requiring a certification, or adding new regulatory language prohibiting quotas would be ineffective. Prior to this rescission, the regulations already included express language prohibiting the use of quotas and the agency issued guidance highlighting this prohibition.
Some commenters disagreed with DOL's position that the Section 503 utilization analysis is unworkable because it is dependent on the E.O. 11246 job groupings.
In lieu of E.O. 11246 job groups, some commenters suggested that contractors could use EEO-1 job categories, total workforce, or their own groupings for the utilization analysis. Other commenters suggested that DOL add the 41 CFR 60-2.12 definition of job group from the E.O. 11246 regulations to the Section 503 regulations. One commenter suggested replacing the utilization goal and analysis with other types of analyses and reporting. These include barrier analyses of recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion practices; data on average response times and resolution outcomes for reasonable accommodation requests; and reports on qualitative measures of inclusion, such as accessibility of digital systems, participation in leadership pipelines, and engagement in workplace culture. The commenter also recommended that contractors be required to integrate accessibility into procurement and supply chain reviews and to embed accessibility and disability inclusion into training, design, and operational practices. Another commenter suggested requiring a barrier analysis to assess application accessibility, screening practices, workplace culture, and career pathways when contractors fail to meet the 7 percent utilization goal.
DOL declines to adopt these recommendations. Imposing new requirements or job groupings for conducting Section 503 analyses would be contrary to E.O. 14219, which directs Federal agencies to implement deregulatory measures and reduce undue burden on businesses.
Commenters also expressed concern as to how they could measure progress without the utilization analysis and the regulations' data collection requirements. For example, some commenters expressed concern as to how contractors could identify potential discrimination issues in their workforce or measure the effectiveness of their outreach efforts, as required by 41 CFR 60-741.44(f)(3), without these analyses. Similarly, commenters asserted that rescinding the analyses would hinder contractors' ability to prepare and maintain other required sections of the AAP. A commenter requested that contractors be permitted to continue to conduct the analyses and to be afforded flexibility in how they do so. Another commenter also recommended that contractors be permitted to conduct periodic analyses to assess whether they are reaching qualified applicants.
In response, DOL notes that contractors can continue to meet the objectives of Section 503 without DOL mandating the specific type of analyses. This final rule is removing the disability inquiry requirement and is rescinding the related data collection and analyses set forth at 41 CFR 60-741.44(k) and 41 CFR 60-741.45, respectively. If contractors, at their own discretion, continue to take these actions, they should ensure that in doing so, they are acting in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the ADA. Removing the rigid requirement to complete the utilization and data collection analyses affords contractors the flexibility to conduct analyses that are appropriate for their workforce, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all requirement.
Further, while the final rule no longer requires contractors to collect disability data or to compute the metrics previously required under 41 CFR 60-741.44(k), they can continue to measure the effectiveness of their outreach efforts through other measures that are appropriate for their workforce. DOL does acknowledge that many contractors primarily relied on the quantitative data to assess the effectiveness of their outreach and other affirmative action requirements. The 2013 rule also required contractors to consider the quantitative data, among other criteria.
DOL received several comments regarding the congressional intent underlying Section 503. For example, some commenters noted that Section 503 requires contractors to engage in affirmative action for individuals with disabilities. These commenters asserted that DOL's proposal to rescind the affirmative action requirements described above (
DOL disagrees with these comments. Section 503 requires contractors to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities.” 29 U.S.C. 793(a). As detailed in section III(A) above, while the disability inquiry and utilization goal requirements conflict
In the NPRM, DOL proposed removing the Section 503 regulations' cross-references to E.O. 11246, which was revoked by E.O. 14173 on January 21, 2025.
A commenter stated that removing the E.O. 11246 cross-references would result in disability-related complaints being siloed or deprioritized, particularly in cases where disability interacts with other protected bases under federal law (
As a point of clarification, neither the NPRM nor this final rule propose changes to Section 503 found at 29 U.S.C. 793. Rather, the NPRM correctly noted that the implementing regulations for this statute expressly cross-reference E.O. 11246, which was revoked by E.O. 14173. Commenters' concerns about removing the E.O. 11246 cross-references are unfounded, as the proposed change is technical in nature. Rather than cross-referencing to the E.O. 11246 regulation's administrative proceeding procedures, DOL is merely moving the applicable procedures directly into the Section 503 regulatory text. This technical change will remove the outdated E.O. 11246 references, thereby ensuring greater clarity for stakeholders.
Separately, the E.O. 11246 regulations at 41 CFR part 60-3 previously incorporated the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), 29 CFR part 1607. UGESP is not applicable to Section 503. Section 60-741.21(a)(7)(iii) explained this fact by citing to the E.O. 11246 regulations at 41 CFR part 60-3. Now that E.O. 11246 has been revoked, UGESP continues to be inapplicable to Section 503, but the reference to 41 CFR part 60-3 in 41 CFR 60-741.21(a)(7)(iii) is outdated. As a result, this final rule revises 41 CFR 60-741.21(a)(7)(iii) to remove the cross-reference to 41 CFR part 60-3 and retain the reference to UGESP. This action does not impact other agencies' interpretation and application of UGESP, or the existence of UGESP more broadly.
DOL received numerous comments on its proposal to relocate the administrative proceeding procedures formerly contained in the E.O. 11246 regulations into the Section 503 implementing regulations. Several commenters supported this proposal, stating that conforming the regulatory structure in this manner is reasonable and appropriate following the revocation of E.O. 11246. These commenters noted that consolidating the applicable procedures within the Section 503 regulations would improve regulatory clarity and transparency regarding the procedures governing enforcement of Section 503. Other commenters recommended that DOL modify or eliminate the administrative proceeding procedures because of recent case law challenging the use of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) by federal agencies.
In any event, these developments do not affect DOL's decision here. This final rule does not expand DOL's remedial authority, create new causes of action, or establish new enforcement mechanisms. It merely relocates the existing procedural provisions after the revocation of E.O. 11246. To the extent future judicial decisions clarify the constitutional status of DOL's ALJs, clarify the application of
In the NPRM, DOL noted that rescinding the disability inquiry, utilization, and related data collection requirements would reduce the regulatory burden for contractors. While some commenters agreed that the NPRM revisions would reduce undue burden, others disagreed. These other commenters noted that changing the current requirements would require contractors to update their HR systems and processes, creating additional work. They also expressed concern that shifting requirements could cause confusion and increase the risk of noncompliance. Other commenters argued that the current requirements do not impose an undue burden, emphasizing that the burden is minimal because contractors already collect similar information on protected veterans. They further asserted that any burdens are minor compared to the potential costs to individuals with disabilities such as weakened discrimination protections.
DOL acknowledges that contractors might incur costs updating HR systems to remove disability inquiries and updating related analyses. But even after accounting for these potential costs, DOL estimates that these changes will lead to significant overall savings.
DOL also disagrees with the comments regarding the potential costs to individuals with disabilities. As noted above, the discrimination protections remain intact, and the proposed changes to the affirmative action provisions are intended to align the regulations with the ADA's guardrails and protections for individuals with disabilities. DOL is implementing changes that will better ensure that contractors are meeting their Section 503 obligations, while also complying with their other civil rights obligations.
With respect to commenters' concerns about the proposed changes causing confusion, DOL will continue to provide stakeholders with updated guidance as necessary on the Section 503 program. In this way, contractors will continue to receive notice of the changes and can stay informed about their obligations under Section 503.
Some commenters expressed general support or opposition to the NPRM without addressing specific issues discussed in the NPRM. Some commenters raised issues unrelated to DOL's authority under Section 503, such as contract bidding opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Other commenters suggested modifications unrelated to topics covered in the NPRM, such as adding a religious exemption into the Section 503 regulations or adding fines and penalties to the regulations. Some commenters suggested subregulatory changes to DOL's enforcement procedures or requested subregulatory guidance on the Section 503 program. These issues fall outside the scope of this rulemaking, and therefore DOL does not address them in this final rule. To the extent that DOL determines that additional regulatory changes may be necessary, then those changes may be pursued in a separate rulemaking. DOL may also continue to update its subregulatory materials as necessary to ensure they align with current agency procedures and requirements.
A commenter supporting the proposed rule urged the President to utilize his authority at 29 U.S.C. 793(c) to temporarily provide relief from the affirmative action requirements under Section 503 until DOL finalized a new rule. While DOL declined to implement this recommendation, DOL notes that no contractors were cited for a violation related to the disability inquiry and utilization requirements during the rulemaking period.
Some commenters encouraged DOL to delay the final rule until further study and input from stakeholders or until the future state of OFCCP is determined. Another commenter recommended DOL wait until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issues a pending report on the Section 503 program and stakeholders have an opportunity to assess the impact. DOL respectfully declines these recommendations. As set forth in detail above, issuing the final rule is necessary to align the Section 503 requirements with applicable law and recent executive orders, and significantly reduces the regulatory burden on contractors. Through the rulemaking process, DOL has provided stakeholders with sufficient notice of the changes and an opportunity to comment.
Effective October 1, 2025, the basic coverage threshold for Section 503 increased from $15,000 to $20,000, in accordance with the inflationary adjustment requirements in 41 U.S.C. 1908.
The final rule also includes additional technical changes such as corrections to typographical errors and updates to several website addresses that have changed or are no longer available. DOL finds good cause to make these corrections under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Specifically, DOL finds that notice and comment are unnecessary because these changes are technical in nature and do not substantively amend the regulations.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. In accordance with E.O. 12866, DOL has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action.”
Rescinding the disability inquiry and utilization requirements impacts the time burden and costs related to Section 503 compliance. With the removal of the rescinded requirements, DOL estimates the following:
DOL estimates that covered entities will take an average of 10 hours to remove the CC-305 form and data collection information from their recordkeeping/Human Resource Information Systems. This will result in a total of 299,040 burden hours.
With the rescinded provisions, covered entities will no longer have recordkeeping costs related to the disability inquiry requirement and utilization analyses. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-741.44(f)(4) still require a contractor to document all outreach activities it undertakes for individuals with disabilities and retain these documents for a period of 3 years. DOL estimates that it will take each covered entity 10 minutes to maintain the outreach and recruitment documentation. Therefore, the recurring burden for this provision is 19,995 hours (119,971 covered entities × 10 minutes/60 = 19,995 hours).
Section 60-741.44(h)(1)(vi) requires contractors to document the actions taken to meet the audit and reporting system requirements outlined in Section 60-741.44(h). DOL estimates that it will take covered entities 10 minutes to document compliance with this provision. Documentation may include, as an example, the standard operating procedure of the system including roles and responsibilities, and audit and reporting timeframes and lifecycles. The annual recordkeeping burden of this provision is 19,995 hours (119,971 covered entities × 10 minutes/60 = 19,995 hours).
With the rescinded provisions, affected parties (covered entities and applicants/employees) no longer have a third-party disclosure burden related to administering and completing the CC-305 form. The remaining third-party disclosure burden is related to 41 CFR 60-741.44(f)(1)(ii), which requires a contractor to “send written notification of company policy related to its affirmative action efforts to all subcontractors, including subcontracting vendors and suppliers, requesting appropriate action on their part.” DOL estimates that contractors will take 15 minutes to prepare the notification and send it to subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers, and an additional 15 minutes to update email address changes in the company's email system. Likewise, DOL estimates the burden for any information technology assistance needed to send the written communication as 15 minutes. Accordingly, the annual third-party disclosure burden is 89,978 hours (119,971 contractor establishments
Based on the above, the monetized burden is as follows:
•
•
• Monetized annual third-party disclosure burden is $7,769,600 (89,978 hours × $86.35
Together, these costs amount to $26,793,209 in first-year recordkeeping burden costs, $7,769,600 in first-year third-party disclosure burden costs, and $11,222,737 in recurring annual costs (recordkeeping and third-party disclosure burden costs) for subsequent years. With a total of $34,562,809 in first year costs and $11,222,737 in recurring costs in subsequent years, and using a 7 percent discount rate, the annualized cost is $14,328,439.
DOL estimates that affected parties incurred an estimated $105,173,444 in costs under the previous requirements ($104,698,359 in annualized monetized time burden and $475,085 in operating costs related to the CC-305 form).
DOL expects that Human Resources Managers or Management Analysts at each covered entity will spend time becoming familiar with the provisions in the final rule. DOL estimates that it will take one hour on average for a Human Resources Manager or Management Analyst to read the final rule or the compliance assistance materials provided by DOL.
DOL estimates an average hourly wage rate of $99.11 based on a 60/40 split between Human Resources Managers ($77.15) and Management Analysts ($55.15), resulting in an average hourly wage of $68.35. DOL applies a 45 percent rate for fringe benefits and overhead costs, leading to a total hourly wage rate of $99.11 (= $68.35 × 1.45).
Consequently, the estimated burden for rule familiarization is 119,971 hours (= 119,971 covered entities based on 2022 EEO-1 data × 1.0 hours). The total estimated cost is $11,890,326 (= 119,971 hours × $99.11/hour) in the first year. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized rule familiarization costs are estimated at:
• $1.4 million at a discount rate of 3 percent.
• $1.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
DOL does not anticipate significant adjustment costs beyond rule familiarization.
This rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192. Using a perpetual time horizon and 7 percent discount rate, DOL estimates that the annualized cost savings resulting from this final rule amount to $80,047,091 in 2024 dollars.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOL reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department has determined that a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required because this rule is not expected to have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities”
This final rule has no compliance impacts on small entities and would instead eliminate burdensome regulations. Small entities, including small Federal contractors and subcontractors, within the scope of the rescinded requirements may experience economic effects from this rule. However, those effects are expected to be beneficial due to burdens and barriers to participation being eliminated. Because the rule does not impose compliance obligations or associated costs of the type that the RFA is designed to address and that agencies must take steps to “minimize,” DOL has concluded that the final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOL will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, DOL conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 44 U.S.C. 3512.
This rulemaking affects DOL's information collection, “U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Recordkeeping Requirements—29 U.S.C. 793 Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, As Amended,” which is currently approved under OMB Control Number 1250-0005. This information collection covers various Section 503 requirements and includes the CC-305 form, which contractors use to ask applicants and employees if they have a disability or have had one in the past. On August 25, 2025, DOL published a 60-day notice in the
Many of the comments received in response to the information collection request were similar to the NPRM public comments. For example, several commenters disagreed with the proposed information collection changes, asserting that the disability inquiry requirement and related CC-305 form helped DOL and contractors assess compliance with the Section 503 affirmative action obligations, better identify potential discrimination, and develop best practices for disability inclusion. A commenter stated that “removing Section 503 data-collection framework would eliminate the only mechanism that allows both contractors and OFCCP to measure whether affirmative action is meaningful” and that without the data, DOL enforcement would rely on individual complaints and case-by-case investigations, which they view as slower, less efficient, and less effective at identifying systemic discrimination.
Similar to the NPRM comments, commenters urged the agency to maintain the CC-305 form because, if eliminated, contractors would need to develop their own form to collect information they believe necessary to comply with Section 503. Likewise, a commenter stated that they expect many contractors will continue soliciting employees' disability status as part of their Section 503 compliance programs, even if not expressly required by DOL's regulations. A commenter expressed concern that rescinding the CC-305 form would detract from employers' ability to obtain disability information for lawful purposes, such as the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of outreach and recruiting efforts.
One commenter asserted that rescinding the CC-305 form would make it less likely for individuals to disclose their disabilities and seek reasonable accommodation in the workplace, increasing the possibility of discrimination and decreasing productivity. This commenter also believed the CC-305 form was useful because it includes a comprehensive list of disabilities that helps qualified workers determine if a condition they have constitutes a disability. The commenter further noted that this determination can empower workers who may not realize they are protected by the ADA and Section 503, leading some workers with disabilities to seek accommodations that support their success in the workplace, thereby increasing productivity.
Commenters further supported the continued use of the CC-305 form because they believe it streamlines the process for contractors and promotes uniformity among contractors and across contractors' multiple locations, specifically multi-state employers. In particular, one commenter stated that discontinuing the CC-305 form is burdensome for multi-state employers. The commenter argued it is less
Commenters offered additional support for maintaining the CC-305 form, citing their belief that it reinforces the government's leadership role in modeling inclusive employment practices and provides the government data on federal hiring of individuals with disabilities. Another commenter similarly expressed concern that the proposed information collection changes would reduce transparency, accountability, and the ability to measure whether accessibility and inclusion commitments are truly being met.
Several commenters suggested edits to the CC-305 form, including simplifying the introductory language and revising the form to allow contractors to include information on how applicants can request a reasonable accommodation at any point during the selection process. Some commenters suggested the agency adopt a shorter form, with one recommending the agency adopt a form that is mobile-friendly while maintaining the language stating the form is voluntary and confidential. This commenter also suggested that contractors be permitted to hyperlink to the definition of disability and list of medical conditions in order to shorten the form.
A commenter requested that DOL retain the CC-305 form as an optional form, and that DOL provide contractors with flexibility to modify the contents or the format in a way that is consistent with their own corporate culture. The commenter likened this approach to the VEVRAA model in which DOL identifies the core elements that a disability inquiry must contain but leaves the development and execution of the form itself to the contractor. Further, the commenter requested that contractors be permitted to require applicants and employees to complete the form, provided it includes an `opt out' or `I do not want to answer' option. The commenter asserted that because respondents can select `I do not want to answer,' the form remains voluntary.
Some commenters also discussed agency guidance related to the CC-305 form. For example, a commenter requested that DOL restore to the agency's website a prior FAQ related to the electronic implementation of Form CC-305. Another commenter suggested that DOL provide additional resources to encourage higher response rates. Finally, an employer association expressed that it would be premature to eliminate the CC-305 form before any new final regulations implementing Section 503 are promulgated.
In response to the commenter's concern that it would be premature to eliminate the CC-305 form before the Section 503 final rule is promulgated, DOL notes that the proposed changes to the information collection will not take effect until the effective date of the final rule.
Further, for the reasons described above, DOL declines to retain the CC-305 form in any manner since the final rule eliminates the requirement that contractors ask applicants and employees about their disability status. As detailed in the ADA discussion at section III(A)(2) above, DOL believes that Congress made a policy determination to protect privacy with the enactment of the ADA. DOL chooses to enforce Section 503 consistent with the privacy protections of the ADA. DOL enforced, and contractors were able to comply with Section 503's statutory requirements prior to the CC-305 form, and DOL will continue to enforce, and contractors will continue to be able to comply with Section 503's statutory requirements after the discontinuation of this form. If a contractor, in exercising its own legal and business judgment, believes there is a legal basis on which it is permitted to collect certain information under the ADA and its implementing regulations, then this final rule does not prohibit the contractor from doing so. However, given DOL's view that this inquiry process contravenes the ADA, it would not be appropriate for DOL to provide a form for contractors to make potentially unlawful inquiries as to the disability status of applicants and employees.
With respect to the other concerns raised by commenters, DOL notes that the nondiscrimination provisions in the Section 503 regulations remain intact. Contractors are still prohibited from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of their physical or mental disability. As explained above, DOL did not propose, and the final rule does not make, changes to provisions related to reasonable accommodation. Additionally, employees and applicants are still permitted to voluntarily provide information about their disability status for reasonable accommodation purposes. Appendix B to Part 60-741 continues to provide guidance to contractors on best practices on reasonable accommodation procedures, including dissemination of reasonable accommodation procedures to employees. DOL may continue to update its subregulatory materials, as necessary, for alignment with current agency procedures and requirements, including the agency website.
DOL received several comments discussing the burden for the information collection. For example, one commenter argued the agency may be overestimating the burden related to implementing the CC-305 form, as the commenter believes the ongoing costs for administering the form are minimal. Other commenters similarly noted that electronic submission of the disability data minimizes employer burden. Several other commenters expressed concern that eliminating the CC-305 form would impose additional costs, noting the change would require modifications to contractors' electronic systems.
In response, DOL notes that the information collection burden estimate accounted for contractor costs related to discontinuation of the CC-305 form.
The information collection requirements associated with this final rule are summarized as follows:
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
DOL has examined this final rule and has determined that it 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.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Sec. 201, Public Law 104-4 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a significant “intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.
DOL examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. A commenter disagreed with this assessment, asserting that promoting discrimination against individuals with disabilities directly affects family well-being. As explained in section III(A)(3) above, the regulations' non-discrimination provisions remain intact and contractors are still prohibited from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of their physical or mental disability. Therefore, DOL maintains that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this final rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this final rule under the OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
DOL has examined this final rule and determined that it does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact statement. It does not “have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.”
As detailed above, DOL has examined this rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity;” E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Government property management, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Government contracts, Government procurement, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Labor, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 29 U.S.C. 793, as amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212, as amended, and E.O. 14173, DOL amends chapter 60 in title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
29 U.S.C. 705 and 793; E.O. 11758 (3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 841).
(b)
(d)
(p)
(aa)
(a) * * *
(1)
(2)
(a) * * *
(6) The contractor will include the provisions of this clause in every subcontract or purchase order in excess of $20,000, unless exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary issued pursuant to section 503 of the act, as amended, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs may direct to enforce such provisions, including action for noncompliance.
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(iii) The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures do not apply to the Rehabilitation Act and are similarly inapplicable to this part.
(a)
(b) * * *
(3) Any information regarding the medical condition or history of any employee or applicant obtained from a test to determine the illegal use of drugs, except information regarding the illegal use of drugs, is subject to the requirements of § 60-741.23(b)(5).
The full affirmative action program shall be available to any employee or applicant for employment for inspection upon request. The location and hours during which the program may be obtained shall be posted at each establishment.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Entities funded by the Department of Labor that provide recruitment or training services for individuals with disabilities, such as the services currently provided through the Employer Assistance and Resource Network (EARN) (
(E) Local Employment Network (EN) organizations (other than the contractor, if the contractor is an EN) listed in the Social Security Administration's Ticket to Work Employment Network Directory (
(3)
(l) Contractors are not required to consider quantitative data on the numbers of individuals with disabilities who were referrals, applicants, or hires when assessing the effectiveness of their outreach efforts and affirmative action program pursuant to 41 CFR 60-741.44(f)(3) and 41 CFR 60-741.44(h)(1).
(d) These voluntary training and development programs should not result in discrimination against other groups and do not relieve a contractor from liability for discrimination under this act or the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act.
(f) * * *
(1) If the complaint investigation finds no violation of the act or this part, or if the Director decides not to refer the matter to the Solicitor of Labor for enforcement proceedings against the contractor pursuant to § 60-741.65(a)(1), the complainant and contractor shall be so notified. The Director, on his or her own initiative, may reconsider his or her determination or the determination of any of his or her designated officers who have authority to issue Notifications of Results of Investigation.
(a)
(2) In addition to the administrative proceedings set forth in this section, the Director may, within the limitations of applicable law, seek appropriate judicial action to enforce the contractual provisions set forth in § 60-741.5, including appropriate injunctive relief.
(b)
(2) Complaints may be filed by the Solicitor, the Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and Labor-Management, Regional Solicitors, and Associate Regional Solicitors.
(3) [Reserved]
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(2)
(3)
(g)
(2)
(3)
(h)
(2)
(i) Contain a statement of the facts which constitute the grounds of defense, and shall specifically admit, explain, or deny, each of the allegations of the complaint unless the defendant is without knowledge, in which case the answer shall so state; or
(ii) State that the defendant admits all the allegations of the complaint. The answer may contain a waiver of hearing; and if not, a separate paragraph in the answer shall request a hearing. The answer shall contain the name and address of the defendant, or of the attorney representing the defendant. Failure to file an answer or to plead specifically to any allegation of the complaint shall constitute an admission of such allegation.
(3)
(i)
(j)
(2)
(k)
(2)
(i) Denying specifically the matter as to which an admission is requested; or
(ii) Setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny such matters.
(3)
(l)
(2) After commencement of the action, any party may serve on any other party a request to permit entry upon designated property which may be relevant to the issues in the proceeding and, which is in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection, measuring, surveying or photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or area.
(3) Each request shall set forth with reasonable particularity the items to be inspected and shall specify a reasonable time and place for making the inspection and performing the related acts.
(4) The party upon whom the request is served shall respond within 25 days after the service of the request. The response shall state, with respect to each item, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless there are objections, in which case the reasons for each objection shall be stated. The party submitting the request may move for an order with respect to any objection or to other failure to respond.
(m)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.
(ii) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or was designated to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, partnership, association, or governmental agency which is a party may be used by the adverse party for any purpose.
(iii) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the administrative law judge finds:
(A) That the witness is dead; or
(B) That the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or
(C) That the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or
(D) Upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable to allow the deposition to be used.
(iv) If only part of a deposition is introduced in evidence by a party, any party may introduce any other parts by way of rebuttal and otherwise.
(6)
(n)
(i) Simplification of the issues;
(ii) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitation;
(iii) Stipulations, admissions of fact and of contents and authenticity of documents;
(iv) Limitation of number of witnesses;
(v) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
(vi) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceedings.
(2) The record shall show the matters disposed of by order and by agreement in such pretrial conferences. The subsequent course of the proceeding shall be controlled by such action.
(o)
(2)
(i) That the order shall have the same force and effect as an order made after full hearing;
(ii) That the entire record on which any order may be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement;
(iii) That any further procedural steps are waived; and
(iv) That any right to challenge or contest the validity of the findings and order entered into in accordance with the agreement is waived.
(3)
(i) Submit the proposed agreement to the Administrative Law Judge for his consideration;
(ii) Inform the Administrative Law Judge that agreement cannot be reached.
(4)
(p)
(q)
(1) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding by consent of the parties or upon his own motion;
(2) Require parties to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding;
(3) Require parties to produce for examination those relevant witnesses and documents under their control; and require parties to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions in full;
(4) Administer oaths;
(5) Rule on motions, and other procedural items or matters pending before him;
(6) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of participants therein;
(7) Examine and cross-examine witnesses, and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;
(8) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence and limit lines of questioning or testimony which are irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious;
(9) Fix time limits for submission of written documents in matters before him and extend any time limits established by this part upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby;
(10) Impose appropriate sanctions against any party or person failing to obey an order under these rules which may include:
(i) Refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting it
(ii) Excluding all testimony of an unresponsive or evasive witness, or determining that the answer of such witness, if given, would be unfavorable to the party having control over him; and
(iii) Expelling any party or person from further participation in the hearing;
(11) Take official notice of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice;
(12) Recommend whether the respondent is in current violation of the order, regulations, or its contractual obligations, as well as the nature of the relief necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights secured by the order;
(13) Issue subpoenas; and
(14) Take any action authorized by these rules.
(r)
(2)
(s)
(2) It shall be the obligation of each party to produce for examination any person, along with such documents as may be requested, at the time and place, and on the date, set forth in the notice, if that party has control over such person. Each party shall be deemed to have control over its officers, agents, employees, and members. Due regard shall be given to the convenience of witnesses in scheduling their testimony so that they will be detained no longer than reasonably necessary.
(3) The party or prospective witness may file an objection within 5 days after notice of production of such witness is served stating with particularity the reasons why the party cannot produce a requested witness. The party serving the notice may move for an order with respect to such objection or failure to produce a witness.
(t)
(u)
(2)
(3)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(y)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(z)
(2) Other persons or organizations shall have the right to participate as parties if the final Administrative order could adversely affect them or the class they represent, and such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the proceedings.
(3) Any person or organization wishing to participate as a party under this section shall file with the Administrative Law Judge and serve on all parties a petition within 25 days after the commencement of the action or at such other time as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) Petitioner's interest in the proceedings;
(ii) Who will appear for petitioner;
(iii) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
(iv) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether each petitioner has the requisite interest in the proceedings and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interest, the Administrative Law Judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative to represent all such petitioners: Provided, That the representative of a labor organization qualifying to participate under paragraph (z)(1) of the section must be permitted to participate in the proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge shall give each petitioner written notice of the decision on his petition; and if the petition is denied, he shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as amicus curiae. The Administrative Law Judge shall give written notice to each party of each petition granted.
(5) Any other interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae shall file a petition before the commencement of the final hearing with the Administrative Law Judge. Such petition shall concisely state:
(i) The petitioner's interest in the hearing;
(ii) Who will represent the petitioner; and
(iii) The issues on which petitioner intends to present argument. The Administrative Law Judge may grant the petition if he finds that the petitioner has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, and that such participation may contribute materially to the proper disposition of the issues. An amicus curiae is not a party but may participate as provided in this section.
(6) An amicus curiae may present a brief oral statement at the hearing at the point in the proceeding specified by the Administrative Law Judge. He may submit a written statement of position to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the beginning of a hearing and shall serve a copy on each party. He may also submit a brief or written statement at such time as the parties submit briefs and exceptions, and he shall serve a copy on each party.
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(gg)
(hh)
(2) The answer shall be filed in accordance with 41 CFR 60-741.65(h)(1) and (2).
(3) Failure to request a hearing within the 20 days provided by 41 CFR 60-741.65(h)(1) shall constitute a waiver of hearing, and all the material allegations of fact contained in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted. If a hearing is not requested or is waived, within 25 days of the complaint's filing, the Administrative Law Judge shall adopt as findings of fact the material facts alleged in the complaint, and shall order the appropriate sanctions and/or penalties sought in the complaint. The Administrative Law Judge's findings and order shall constitute a final Administrative order, unless the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions to the findings and order within 10 days of receipt thereof. If the Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, files exceptions, the matter shall proceed in accordance with 41 CFR 60-741.65(ll).
(4) If a request for a hearing is received within 20 days as provided by 41 CFR 60-741.65(h)(1), the hearing shall be convened within 45 days of receipt of the request and shall be completed within 15 days thereafter, unless more hearing time is required.
(ii)
(2) Witness lists and hearing exhibits will be exchanged at least 10 days in advance of the hearing.
(3) For good cause shown, and upon motion made in accordance with 41 CFR 60-741.65(j), the Administrative Law Judge may allow the taking of depositions. Other discovery will not be permitted.
(jj)
(2) The hearing shall be informal in nature, and the Administrative Law Judge shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.
(kk)
(ll)
(mm)
(b)
2. Although the contractor would not be expected to accommodate disabilities of which it is unaware, the contractor has an affirmative obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for applicants and employees of whose disabilities the contractor has actual knowledge. Section 60-741.44(d) provides that if an employee with a known disability is having significant difficulty performing his or her job and it is reasonable to conclude that the performance problem may be related to the disability, the contractor is required to confidentially inquire whether the problem is disability related and if the employee is in need of a reasonable accommodation.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposed offering regime is intended to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation within the crypto asset markets while, at the same time, ensuring that investors are adequately protected and provided with the information they need to make informed investment decisions. The proposed rules would be set forth in a new regulation titled “Regulation Crypto Assets” and would include two exemptions from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. The first exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period. The second exemption would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Under both exemptions, issuers would be required to make certain principles-based narrative disclosures available to their investors. In addition, issuers under the second exemption would be required to provide financial statements and would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. Issuers that rely on these exemptions would remain subject to the antifraud and antimanipulation provisions of the Federal securities laws. The proposed rules also would include a conditional safe harbor from the term “investment contract” in the definitions of “security” in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If the conditions of that proposed safe harbor are satisfied, then a crypto asset would be deemed not to be subject to an investment contract for purposes of those definitions of “security.”
This release was published in the
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on the Commission's website (
Patrick Faller, Special Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-3500, John Fieldsend, Special Counsel, Office of Rulemaking, at (202) 551-3430, or Irene Paik, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Crypto Assets, at (202) 551-2076, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
We are proposing amendments to or proposing to add the following rules and forms:
We are proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
Since the advent of Bitcoin in 2008,
Despite this growth, the Commission has not to date adapted its rules to address the unique aspects of the crypto asset markets. Instead, the Commission generally has looked to the test developed by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Although relying on familiar and well-established legal standards in lieu of tailored rules has some merit, this approach has two primary drawbacks in the context of crypto assets. First, it can be difficult to apply the
Without fit-for-purpose rules, existing regulatory requirements, many of which were adopted well before the proliferation of crypto assets, could complicate an issuer's transaction planning and, in turn, impede capital formation and innovation in the crypto asset markets. Furthermore, in response to these regulatory challenges, some issuers may choose to conduct their crypto asset transactions offshore, limiting investment options (and, therefore, the ability to diversify) for U.S. investors or exposing them to additional risks from participating in markets with less robust investor protections.
The Commission recently took steps to address these issues by clarifying its views on the application of the
Although the Commission and its staff began engaging with crypto assets as early as 2013,
In the years following the DAO Report, the Commission and its staff continued to address ICOs (and crypto assets in general) on an ad hoc basis.
Some Commissioners and other commentators expressed concerns about the Commission's approach to crypto assets during this period.
In early 2025, the Commission's approach to crypto assets began to shift. The Commission's Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda established a Crypto Task Force.
In addition, as part of an effort to provide greater clarity on the application of the Federal securities laws to crypto assets, the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance issued a series of staff statements beginning in February 2025. These statements provided the Division's views regarding the application of the Federal securities laws to various crypto asset-related matters, including meme coins,
Further, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” on January 23, 2025.
On July 30, 2025, the President's Working Group issued a report consisting of several regulatory recommendations.
• Establish a fit-for-purpose exemption from registration under section 5 of the Securities Act for securities distributions involving digital assets;
• Establish a time-limited safe harbor or exemption from certain securities law requirements for transactions involving digital assets that may be subject to an investment contract because they are not yet fully functional or associated with a sufficiently decentralized
• Establish a safe harbor for certain airdrops from characterization as “sales” under section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act
On July 31, 2025, following publication of the President's Working Group Report, Commission Chairman Paul S. Atkins announced the launch of “Project Crypto”—a Commission-wide initiative to modernize the Federal securities rules and regulations—and directed the Commission's staff “to swiftly develop proposals to implement the [President's Working Group's] recommendations.”
On March 17, 2026, the Commission issued a release titled
The 2026 Interpretation further explained that, as with any asset that is not a security, a non-security crypto asset can be offered and sold subject to an investment contract, which is a security.
With respect to how non-security crypto assets become subject to an
Under such circumstances, secondary market offers and sales of such a non-security crypto asset would constitute securities transactions that must be registered under the Securities Act or conducted pursuant to an available exemption from registration. The associated investment contract will continue to be transferred to subsequent purchasers of the non-security crypto asset in secondary market transactions until the non-security crypto asset separates from the issuer's representations or promises, as discussed below. Market participants should refer to the 2026 Interpretation for a more complete discussion of the Commission's views as to the circumstances under which a non-security crypto asset may become subject to an investment contract.
With respect to how a non-security crypto asset that was previously offered and sold subject to an investment contract ceases to be subject to such investment contract, the 2026 Interpretation stated that for the non-security crypto asset to remain subject to the investment contract, purchasers must continue to reasonably expect the issuer's representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts to remain connected to the non-security crypto asset.
The 2026 Interpretation also set forth the Commission's views regarding the investment contract status of certain crypto asset disseminations known as “airdrops.” The Commission noted that “[a]n `airdrop' is a means for crypto asset issuers to disseminate their crypto assets in exchange for no or nominal consideration” and discussed some of the reasons why an issuer may conduct an airdrop.
The Crypto Task Force was established on January 21, 2025 to “develop[] a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets.”
To date, the Crypto Task Force has received over 300 comment letters.
With respect to the “Security Status” topic, Commissioner Peirce noted that “[m]arket participants have expressed a reasonable desire to determine with ease whether . . . [a given crypto] asset is a security or is being offered or sold as part of an investment contract.”
Several commenters that addressed these questions stated that many crypto assets are not themselves necessarily securities.
Several commenters described difficulty associated with the
Further, some commenters suggested that the level of a crypto network's decentralization is essential for determining whether a crypto asset is the subject of an investment contract.
Finally, several commenters recommended that the Commission clarify the application of the Federal securities laws to certain technology functions that are inherent to a crypto network.
With respect to the “Scoping Out” topic, Commissioner Peirce stated that “[t]he Commission may be able to provide greater clarity to investors and other market participants by identifying categories of crypto assets (and transactions) that do not fall within its authority.”
Commenters generally agreed that it would be helpful for the Commission to clarify the security status of different types of crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.
With respect to the “Public Offerings” topic, Commissioner Peirce stated that “[p]eople who have conducted or attempted to conduct registered or qualified token offerings have expressed frustration about the cost and feasibility of registration.”
Several commenters suggested that the Commission's existing offering regimes, including the related disclosure requirements, are unfit for application to covered investment contracts and their issuers.
In addition, several commenters generally supported Regulation A as a potential starting point or model for a covered investment contract offering framework.
Finally, the “Safe Harbor from Registration” topic solicited input on several aspects of a potential “time-limited exemption from the registration requirements under the Securities Act for offers and sales of crypto assets during the development of a blockchain project” that Commissioner Peirce first suggested in 2020.
Many commenters generally supported a potential exemption along these lines.
In light of the concerns raised about the Commission's approach to covered investment contracts before 2025 (as described in section I.A.1), the regulatory developments beginning in 2025 (as described in section I.A.2), and the public input that commenters provided to the Crypto Task Force (as described in section I.B), we are proposing new rules with respect to covered investment contracts.
The proposed rules would be set forth in a new regulation titled “Regulation Crypto Assets”
• Subpart A would contain general rules, many of which would be applicable to all the other rules in the regulation.
• Subpart B would set forth an exemption from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act
• Subpart C would set forth an exemption from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act that would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period (“fundraising exemption”).
• Subpart D would set forth a safe harbor from the term “investment contract” in the definitions of “security” in the Securities Act
• Subpart E would define “qualified purchaser” for purposes of section 18(b)(3) of the Securities Act such that State securities law registration and qualification requirements would be preempted with respect to offers and sales of covered investment contracts issued pursuant to an exemption in Regulation Crypto Assets, as well as certain secondary market transactions with respect to such covered investment contracts. This proposed definition of “qualified purchaser” is discussed in section II.E below.
We also are proposing new forms that issuers would file with the Commission when relying on the exemptions and safe harbor in Regulation Crypto Assets. In addition, we are proposing conforming amendments to certain existing rules that would help implement the new rules in Regulation Crypto Assets.
We invite and encourage interested parties to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed rules. When commenting, please include the reasoning in support of your position or recommendation and provide any supporting documentation or data.
Under our proposal, the rules in Regulation Crypto Assets would be set forth in part 228 of Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). Consolidating all the rules into a single part titled “Regulation Crypto Assets” may facilitate compliance with the proposed rules, especially for those issuers that are less familiar with our rules or may otherwise be unsure where the relevant rules are located in the CFR.
Subpart A of Regulation Crypto Assets would include the following proposed rules, each of which would be applicable to all or some of the other rules in Regulation Crypto Assets:
• Proposed 17 CFR 228.100 (“Rule 100”), titled “Definitions of terms used in Regulation Crypto Assets,” would set forth certain definitions that would apply to each of the proposed rules in Regulation Crypto Assets as well as the related forms.
• Proposed 17 CFR 228.101 (“Rule 101”), titled “General provisions,” would contain a series of provisions generally applicable to Regulation Crypto Assets.
• Proposed 17 CFR 228.102 (“Rule 102”), titled “Inflation adjustment for offering limits,” would establish a process whereby the proposed offering limits would be adjusted for inflation on an ongoing, predetermined basis without requiring the Commission to engage in notice and comment rulemaking each time it makes those routine adjustments.
• Proposed 17 CFR 228.103 (“Rule 103”), titled “Disclosure requirements,” would set forth principles-based disclosure requirements that issuers would be required to satisfy under the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption.
• Proposed 17 CFR 228.104 (“Rule 104”), titled “Disqualification,” would condition the availability of the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption on the issuer and certain other related persons and insiders not being disqualified as a “bad actor,” as set forth in 17 CFR 230.262(a) of Regulation A (“Rule 262(a)”).
These proposed rules are discussed below.
Although defined terms are important in every new regulation, they are particularly important for Regulation Crypto Assets for several reasons. As a relatively novel and highly technological asset class, it is important that terms related to crypto assets be defined clearly so that they can be understood by all market participants, regardless of their technological sophistication. Given the rapid pace of innovation in the crypto asset markets, it also is important that the terms be both accurate with respect to the current state of the technology and sufficiently flexible to cover potential developments in the market to avoid a need to continually revisit and update the definitions. In addition, because the rules in Regulation Crypto Assets are intended to be tailored to offerings with respect to a specific type of security (
Proposed Rule 100 would set forth certain definitions that would apply to each of the rules in Regulation Crypto Assets as well as the related forms. The following terms would be defined in Rule 100:
• “Aggregate offering price” and “aggregate sales”;
• “Associated crypto application”;
• “Associated crypto network”;
• “Business day”;
• “Covered investment contract”;
• “Covered transaction”;
• “Crypto asset”;
• “Final offering circular”;
• “Related person”; and
• “Subject crypto asset.”
In addition, Rule 100 would provide that other than these specifically defined terms (and unless otherwise provided), the terms used in Regulation Crypto Assets (and in new forms, Form 1-CRYPTO, Form 1-KC, Form 1-SC, Form 1-UC, Form TR, and Form NOR, which would be codified at 17 CFR 239.600 through 605) will have the same meanings as in 17 CFR 230.405 (“Rule 405”), except that all references to “registrant” in those definitions will refer to the issuer of the securities to be offered and sold under Regulation Crypto Assets.
The term “aggregate offering price” would be defined as the sum of all cash and other consideration to be received for the covered investment contracts being offered.
If covered investment contracts are not offered for cash, the aggregate offering price or aggregate sales would be based on the value of the consideration as established by bona fide sales of that consideration made within a reasonable time, or, in the absence of sales, on the fair value as determined by an accepted standard. Valuations of non-cash consideration would be required to be reasonable at the time made. The proposed definitions generally are consistent with the terms as defined in 17 CFR 230.501 (“Rule 501”) of Regulation D and as used in 17 CFR 230.251 of Regulation A. The terms are primarily used in Regulation Crypto Assets to set the offering limits in the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption.
The term “associated crypto application” would be defined to mean, with respect to a crypto asset, the smart contract or similar executable software program that is deployed to an associated crypto network and within which such crypto asset may be used for the transmission or storage of value or for which the crypto asset facilitates access or participation. This term is used throughout Regulation Crypto Assets and is intended to capture the particular application in which a given crypto asset can be used for various functions.
The term “associated crypto network” would be defined to mean, with respect to a crypto asset, the blockchain or similar distributed ledger technology network on which such crypto asset is generated, minted, or mined. This term is used throughout Regulation Crypto Assets and is intended to capture the particular network to which a given crypto asset is “native” and on which records regarding ownership of and transactions in that crypto asset are recorded.
The term “business day” would be defined as any day except Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays. This proposed definition is consistent with the definition of “business day” set forth in 17 CFR 230.261 of Regulation A. This term is used in several rules in Regulation Crypto Assets, generally with respect to deadlines for making certain filings with the Commission.
As noted above,
The term “covered transaction” would be defined as an offer, sale, or other distribution of a covered investment contract in reliance on the startup exemption, including, but not limited to: (1) any public or private offering, including a distribution, of a covered investment contract in one or a series of capital raising transactions; or (2) any public or private offering, including a distribution and transactions referred to as “airdrops,”
As the proposed definition suggests, the term “covered transaction” is used only in the context of the startup exemption. While that definition would include any offer, sale, or other distribution of a covered investment contract in reliance on the startup exemption, it also sets forth examples of certain types of distributions.
As noted in section I above,
The term “crypto asset” is embedded in the definition of “covered investment contract,” and, as previously noted in this section, the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption are available only for offers and sales of covered investment contracts. Thus, to ensure that Regulation Crypto Assets has an appropriately limited scope, the definition would include only those assets for which the relevant technology (
As noted below,
The term “related person” would mean, with respect to an issuer: founders, promoters, employees, affiliates, and any person that is a director, officer, trustee, consultant, contractor, or advisor to the issuer, in each case together with any immediate family member. This term is used in proposed Rule 103 (“Disclosure requirements”). The definition is intended to include any person that may be viewed as an “insider” of the issuer to ensure that investors are adequately protected and informed (via the disclosure requirements in the proposed rule) about those who are in the best position to influence the outcome of the project.
Finally, the term “subject crypto asset” would be defined as a crypto asset that is subject to a covered investment contract. This definition is intended to reflect a key principle: for purposes of Regulation Crypto Assets, the “security” at issue is the covered investment contract (to which the subject crypto asset is subject) rather than the crypto asset itself.
1. Should we adopt Rule 100 as proposed?
2. Are there any defined terms that we either should not adopt or should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those defined terms along with any recommended changes to the definitions.
3. Are there additional terms used in Regulation Crypto Assets that we should define?
4. Does the proposed definition of “associated crypto network” appropriately capture the particular network to which a given crypto asset is “native” and on which records regarding ownership and transactions in that crypto asset are recorded?
5. Does the definition of “covered investment contract” scope in the appropriate population of securities? If not, what scope would be more appropriate?
6. The definition of “covered investment contract” would exclude investment contracts that involve crypto assets that are securities or any other type of asset other than a non-security crypto asset. Should we instead adopt a definition of “covered investment contract” that would permit investment contracts involving assets other than a non-security crypto asset to constitute a “covered investment contract” so long as they also involve non-security crypto assets?
7. Would permitting other types of assets to be considered part of a “covered investment contract” have implications for the proposed approach for determining the number or purchase price of covered investment contracts and the required disclosures about the underlying assets in Rule 103(b)? If the rules permitted other types of assets to be considered part of a “covered investment contract,” should there be a percentage limit on the portion of the covered investment contract that relates to other types of assets and, if so, what would be an appropriate percentage limit?
8. Are the definitions of “crypto asset,” “associated crypto application,” and “associated crypto network” both technologically accurate today and flexible enough to accommodate technological developments in the future? Are there other definitions of these terms that we should use? Given how fundamental the term “crypto asset” is to this proposal, is there a more specific definition we should consider? Is the definition too narrow or too broad?
9. Do the proposed definitions of “aggregate offering price” and
10. As noted previously in this section, if covered investment contracts are not offered for cash, the aggregate offering price or aggregate sales would be based on the value of the consideration as established by bona fide sales of that consideration made within a reasonable time, or, in the absence of sales, on the fair value as determined by an accepted standard. Should we establish a required standard for determining fair value under Regulation Crypto Assets? If not, why not? If so, what should that standard be? Should the standard be U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”)? Should the rule provide a list of permitted standards?
11. Does the proposed definition of “related person” cover the appropriate scope of persons that may be viewed as insiders of the issuer and therefore should be subject to the relevant disclosure requirements in proposed Rule 103?
Many of the Commission's existing offering exemptions—including Regulation A, Regulation D, and Regulation Crowdfunding—contain general provisions that apply to the regulations as a whole and have various functions, including clarifying the scope of the regulations, the applicable liability standards, and general requirements or conditions to relying on the exemptions, among other things. Regulation Crypto Assets would include several of these general provisions, consistent with other offering exemptions. To facilitate compliance, we are proposing to consolidate these general provisions in Rule 101.
Rule 101 would set forth the following provisions: Rule 101(a) (“Non-exclusive”), Rule 101(b) (“Integration”), Rule 101(c) (“Electronic filing”), Rule 101(d) (“Insignificant deviations”), and Rule 101(e) (“Number of units and price per unit”).
Rule 101(a) would provide that attempted compliance with any exemption or safe harbor in Regulation Crypto Assets would not act as an exclusive election.
Rule 101(b) would provide that issuers should refer to 17 CFR 230.152 (“Rule 152”) to determine whether offers and sales should be integrated.
Rule 101(c) would require documents filed or otherwise provided to the Commission pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets to be submitted in electronic format by means of the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system (“EDGAR”) in accordance with the electronic filing rules set forth in 17 CFR part 232 (“Regulation S-T”).
Rule 101(d) would provide that failure to comply with a term, condition, or requirement of Regulation Crypto Assets would not result in the loss of any exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets for any offer or sale to a particular individual or entity, if the person relying on the exemption establishes that: (i) the failure to comply did not pertain to a term, condition, or requirement directly intended to protect that particular individual or entity; (ii) the failure to comply was insignificant with respect to the offering as a whole;
Finally, Rule 101(e) would specify how to determine the number of units of covered investment contracts and the price per unit of a covered investment contract. That rule would provide that, for purposes of determining the number of units of covered investment contracts as required by any rule or form in Regulation Crypto Assets, one unit of a covered investment contract would be equivalent to one unit of the subject crypto asset. Similarly, the price per unit of a covered investment contract as required by any rule or form in Regulation Crypto Assets should be determined by reference to the price per unit of the subject crypto asset. The rule also would set forth, as an instruction, an illustrative example stating that if an issuer sells a covered investment contract to an investor for $100, and the covered investment contract contemplates that the issuer will distribute 10 units of the subject crypto asset to the investor, then at the time of the sale of the covered investment contract, the investor is deemed to have purchased 10 units of the covered investment contract at a price of $10 per unit of covered investment contract. We believe that specifying how to measure the number of units of covered investment contracts and determine the price per unit of a covered investment contract would facilitate compliance and provide clarity for market participants.
12. Should we adopt Rule 101 as proposed?
13. The provisions in proposed Rule 101 would be similar to the general provisions in several of our existing offering exemptions. Are there any provisions in Rule 101 that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the provisions or an explanation as to why those provisions should not be adopted.
14. Are there any other general provisions that should apply to Regulation Crypto Assets? Should any of the proposed general provisions not apply to one or more of the proposed exemptions or the safe harbor in Regulation Crypto Assets?
15. Should we adopt Rule 101(a) as proposed? Alternatively, should any of the proposed exemptions or the safe harbor in Regulation Crypto Assets act as an exclusive election?
16. Would Rule 101(b) be helpful to remind issuers of the applicability of the integration doctrine and Rule 152? For example, would Rule 101(b)'s reference to Rule 152 provide clarity regarding when offers and sales conducted pursuant to the exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets will be integrated?
17. Does Rule 101(c)'s reference to the requirements of Regulation S-T help to clarify issuers' electronic filing obligations?
18. Should Rule 101(d) deem the failure to comply with any particular rule in Regulation Crypto Assets to be significant to the offering as a whole? If so, which rules should be identified in Rule 101(d)?
19. Should we specify how to measure the number of units of covered investment contracts and determine the price per unit of a covered investment contract as proposed in Rule 101(e)? Is the proposed method of determining the number of units of covered investment contracts appropriate? If not, what would be a better method? Should the price per unit of a covered investment contract be determined by reference to the price per subject crypto asset, as proposed? If not, how should the price per unit be determined?
As discussed in more detail in sections II.B and II.C, the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption each contain offering limits. Those limits are expressed in dollar amounts and reflect our preliminary determination about amounts that would be appropriate to meet issuers' capital raising needs while maintaining adequate investor protections. Those amounts are based on the specific purposes of each exemption as well as current economic and market conditions. We recognize, however, that over time, the efficacy of those dollar limits could be diluted as a result of the effects of inflation. We are proposing Rule 102 to address this possibility by setting up a streamlined process for future inflation adjustments.
Under Rule 102, the Commission would periodically, but not less than once every five years,
20. Should we adopt Rule 102 as proposed?
21. Are there any portions of Rule 102 that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those portions of the rule along with any recommended changes.
22. Would it be more appropriate for the Commission to consider ad hoc adjustments to the offering limits through notice-and-comment rulemaking rather than establishing an ongoing, predetermined basis for making such adjustments?
23. Is the proposed frequency of the Commission's adjustments under this rule (periodically, but no less than once every five years) appropriate? Should these adjustments occur more or less frequently?
24. Should the Commission adjust the offering limits to reflect factors other than, or in addition to, changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers? If so, what other factors would be appropriate to consider?
25. Is the proposed rule's reference to “changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor” an appropriate measure for inflation? If not, what other measure(s) should we use?
A prominent theme in submissions to the Crypto Task Force as well as other public commentary is that the Commission's existing disclosure requirements do not elicit the types of information that are likely to be material to investors in covered investment contracts.
Several commenters expressed concern that the Commission's existing disclosure requirements are “inflexible,” requiring disclosure on topics that are not applicable or relevant to offerings of covered investment contracts.
In developing the proposed disclosure requirements in Rule 103, we have considered a broad range of sources. The proposed requirements were informed, in part, by the Division of Corporation Finance's April 2025 statement titled, “Offerings and Registrations of Securities in the Crypto Asset Markets,” which “reflect[ed] [the staff's] observations regarding disclosures provided in response to existing disclosure requirements.”
Some common themes emerged from those external perspectives. Notably, there appeared to be some consensus regarding the key categories of information that should be required under a tailored disclosure regime, including information about the following: (1) the covered investment contract offering; (2) management, related persons, and other “material
Based on the above considerations, Rule 103 would set forth principles-based disclosure requirements with respect to offerings of covered investment contracts. We believe these disclosure requirements would: (1) elicit material information for investors in these offerings, (2) result in disclosures that are appropriately tailored to reflect covered investment contract issuers' particular facts and circumstances, (3) help investors compare covered investment contracts and covered investment contract offerings, and (4) generally reduce disclosure costs and compliance burdens (as compared to covered investment contract issuers' costs and burdens when trying to comply with existing disclosure requirements).
Rule 103(a) would set forth general disclosure principles that issuers should follow when responding to the disclosure requirements in Rule 103(b). Rule 103(a) would state that information provided under Regulation Crypto Assets should be tailored to the issuer, the subject crypto asset, and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application and should be presented in clear, concise, and understandable language, without overly relying on technical terminology or jargon.
Rule 103(b) would set forth the disclosure requirements that issuers would be required to comply with when relying on the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption.
In addition, as noted previously in this section, the disclosure requirements in Rule 103(b) would be principles-based requirements. That is, the rule would require the issuer to describe the material aspects of the applicable topic without specifying detailed information that must be provided.
We recognize that some market participants may prefer a different approach with respect to the proposed disclosure requirements. For example, some investors may prefer more prescriptive disclosure requirements that give issuers less flexibility but elicit more consistent and comparable disclosures. In addition, notwithstanding the flexibility provided by the principles-based approach, some issuers may prefer that we set forth detailed disclosure requirements to help them more easily determine what information they must provide. Although we believe our proposed requirements strike the appropriate balance, we seek comment on potential alternative approaches, including replacing the principles-based approach with more prescriptive disclosure requirements or, alternatively, supplementing the principles-based requirements with non-exclusive examples of disclosure that may be responsive.
Rule 103(b)(1) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material terms of the covered investment contract, including the issuer's representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract and its progress with respect to such representations or promises, a purchaser's obligations under the covered investment contract, any conditions to the covered investment contract, and any other material terms. Because the covered investment contract would be the security being offered under these exemptions, it is important for issuers to provide
In addition, because the existence of the covered investment contract depends on the issuer's representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts,
In the 2026 Interpretation, the Commission provided guidance regarding the types of efforts that may be regarded as essential managerial efforts. For example, the Commission noted that representations or promises by an issuer conveyed to purchasers to develop and achieve functionality for a non-security crypto asset and/or develop an associated crypto network or associated crypto application together with a business plan containing detailed milestones, a timeline, information about personnel, sources of funding and other resources needed to meet those milestones, and an explanation of how holders of the non-security crypto asset will profit from those efforts, likely would create a reasonable expectation of profits because they speak directly to those essential managerial efforts that affect the failure or success of the project.
We further note that an issuer may make other representations or promises to take certain actions that would not constitute essential managerial efforts. For example, once an issuer has satisfied its representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract, the associated crypto network or associated crypto application may be functional. Once such network or application is functional, it is our view that services to secure, maintain, improve, or enhance such a network or application or its functionality, or to facilitate network effects, whether through sponsoring or funding development projects or other similar activities, would not constitute essential managerial efforts. As a result, any representations or promises (whether by the issuer or another party) to provide or continue to provide or arrange for the provision of such services after the network or application is functional would not satisfy the
Rule 103(b)(2) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material terms of the offering, including:
• The number of units of covered investment contracts to be offered, the purchase price per unit (or how the purchase price per unit will be determined),
• Any material agreements in furtherance of the distribution of covered investment contracts in the offering;
• The estimated net offering sale proceeds and expenses to be paid with the offering proceeds;
• The intended use of proceeds from any sales in the offering; and
• The website address at which any whitepapers or other offering materials that the issuer prepared or distributed, either publicly or to prospective purchasers in connection with the offering, are publicly accessible, free of charge.
As noted in section II.A.4.a above, we believe this is fundamental information regarding the offering that should be provided to investors to support their ability to make a well-informed investment decision.
Rule 103(b)(3) would require the issuer to provide a description of the name and the material aspects of the subject crypto asset.
Rule 103(b)(4) would require the issuer to provide a description of: (i) the material aspects of the issuer's management and related persons; (ii) the material aspects of any conflicts of interest or related person transactions involving the issuer; and (iii) whether related persons are subject to any transfer or resale restriction(s) with respect to the covered investment contract or subject crypto asset and, if so, the material terms of such restriction(s).
In addition, covered investment contracts sold pursuant to one of the exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets would not be restricted securities for purposes of the Federal securities laws. Absent a contractual or other applicable holding period or restriction, therefore, purchasers of covered investment contracts issued under the proposed exemptions would be able to sell those securities immediately upon acquisition. Several commenters expressed concerns about information asymmetries and misaligned incentives between issuer “insiders” and other investors, especially during the period after which the issuer has offered and sold covered investment contracts but before the issuer has fulfilled its representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract.
We recognize that investor protection risks related to information asymmetries and misaligned incentives between insiders and investors may be heightened with respect to covered investment contract offerings due to the unique nature of the representations or promises in these offerings.
Rule 103(b)(5) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material aspects of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application and the issuer's plan of development with respect to the associated crypto network or associated crypto application, including the issuer's progress with respect to its plan of development. As noted in section II.A.4.a above, information about the associated crypto network or associated crypto application, including architecture, network protocols and functionality, and security and source code (the latter two of which are discussed in the next section) is one of the key categories of information that several commenters stated would be important for a disclosure framework tailored to covered investment contracts. We agree that a covered investment contract issuer should provide this information to investors because this information will inform investors' expectations as to the intended future state of the project (which, in turn, will help the investor evaluate the potential future value of the subject crypto asset). In addition, in many cases, the associated crypto network or associated crypto application will not yet have been developed at the time of the covered investment contract offering (in which case the funds from the offering may be funding development of that network or application). In those cases, information regarding the plan of development may be material for investors as they assess the likelihood of success for the project, as well as the expected timing and progress in connection with the plan of development, both at the time of the offering and on an ongoing basis. This proposed rule is intended to elicit that information in a principles-based manner.
Rule 103(b)(6) would require a description of the material aspects of the security of the subject crypto asset and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application and, to the extent the issuer has made it publicly available, the website address at which the code underlying the associated crypto network or associated crypto application (also referred to as “source code”) is accessible.
We agree that a covered investment contract issuer should provide this information to investors because this information would help investors to independently assess whether the associated crypto network or associated crypto application may operate consistently with the issuer's description. In addition, this information would help investors assess potential cybersecurity risks associated with the associated crypto network or associated crypto application. This proposed rule is intended to elicit information regarding the security and source code in a principles-based manner.
Rule 103(b)(7) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material aspects of the subject crypto asset's economics and allocations, including: (1) the subject crypto asset's supply, pricing, lockups, distribution methods, holdings by related persons, and release schedules; (2) the associated crypto network or associated crypto application's mechanisms for generating and destroying subject crypto assets; and (3) methods to verify the subject crypto asset's transaction history.
Rule 103(b)(8) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material aspects of the subject crypto asset's and associated crypto network's or associated crypto application's governance mechanisms, smart contract governance mechanisms, and permissions.
Rule 103(b)(9) would require the issuer to provide a description of the material aspects of the subject crypto asset's current and anticipated ecosystem (
Finally, Rule 103(b)(10) would require the issuer to provide a description, in short, concise statements, of the material factors that make an investment in the offering speculative or risky, including risks related to the covered investment contract, the issuer, the subject crypto asset, and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application.
The rule also would provide that this description must avoid generalized statements and include only factors specific to the covered investment contract, the issuer, the subject crypto asset, and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application. This is intended to avoid boilerplate disclosure and help ensure that information disclosed under this rule is important to an investor's investment decision.
26. Should we adopt Rule 103 as proposed?
27. Are there any specific disclosure requirements in Rule 103 that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the provisions.
28. Are there any other disclosure requirements that we should specify in Rule 103?
29. In lieu of the principles-based requirements, should we adopt more prescriptive disclosure requirements? Alternatively, should the final rules supplement the principles-based requirements with non-exclusive examples of disclosure that may be responsive?
30. Rather than adopting more prescriptive requirements or including examples of disclosure that may be responsive to the principles-based requirements, should we include more detailed guidance in the adopting release regarding what types of information may be responsive to the principles-based requirements?
31. Are there any material terms in the description of the offering we should add, eliminate, or revise? If so, please identify the term and the reasons for doing so.
32. Should we prescribe the methods by which issuers publicly provide or otherwise deliver to investors the disclosures in Rule 103? If so, what methods should the rules prescribe?
33. Will the proposed requirements result in disclosures that investors (including retail investors) will be able to understand and use to make informed investment decisions? If not, how should we revise the requirements to better ensure investors (including retail investors) will be able to understand the resulting disclosures and use them to make informed investment decisions?
34. Do related persons of covered investment contract issuers pose heightened risks with respect to information asymmetries and misaligned incentives such that the disclosure of any resale or transfer restrictions is warranted? Are there other risks that such insiders pose that this disclosure would help address?
35. Instead of only requiring disclosure relating to any related person resale or transfer restrictions, should we require that issuers establish a specific minimum holding period for related persons, such as a one-year holding period, as a condition to relying on the proposed exemptions? Rather than a time-based holding period, should we
36. How should we modify proposed Rule 103(b)(10), if at all, to help ensure that the resulting risk factor disclosure will address only material risks to the issuer and avoid boilerplate disclosures?
Many of the Commission's existing offering exemptions—including Regulation A, Regulation D, and Regulation Crowdfunding—contain disqualification provisions.
Rule 104 would provide that the exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets are not available if the issuer or any person listed in Rule 262(a)
We believe it is appropriate to cross-reference the existing standard in Regulation A, rather than enumerate disqualification requirements specific to the proposed exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets, in the interest of regulatory consistency and simplicity. We also believe that aligning the proposed disqualification standard with the existing standard under Regulation A (which is aligned with similar provisions in Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding) is appropriate because it is likely to simplify due diligence, particularly for issuers that may engage in different types of exempt offerings.
Further, under Rule 104, the disqualification provisions in Rule 262 would not apply with respect to any conviction, order, judgment, decree, suspension, expulsion, or bar that occurred or was issued before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective, if the rule ultimately is adopted. This approach would prevent prior conduct from triggering disqualification without prior notice. To address concerns regarding prior disqualifying events, however, Rule 104 would require the issuer to include in an offering circular or otherwise furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification under Rule 104 but occurred before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective.
37. Should we adopt Rule 104 as proposed?
38. Are there any portions of Rule 104 that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the rule.
39. Would it be beneficial to maintain general uniformity between Rule 104 and the disqualification provisions in Regulation A, as proposed? Are there aspects of this disqualification provision
40. Are there types of persons that are subject to disqualification as proposed under Rule 104 that should be excluded? Alternatively, are there types of persons that are not subject to disqualification under Rule 104 that should be included?
41. Are there types of disqualifying events that would trigger disqualification under Rule 104 that should be excluded? Alternatively, are there types of disqualifying events that would trigger disqualification under Rule 104 that should be included?
42. Rather than cross-referencing Rule 262, should we instead cross-reference the disqualification provision in Regulation D or Regulation Crowdfunding? Are there aspects of these disqualification provisions that are better suited to Regulation Crypto Assets than the disqualification provision in Rule 262? Alternatively, should we adopt a standalone disqualification provision rather than cross-referencing a disqualification provision set forth in an existing exemption?
Subpart B of Regulation Crypto Assets would set forth an exemption from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act for certain offers, sales, and other distributions of covered investment contracts during a period of up to four years. This proposed startup exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during the four-year period. The exemption is intended to provide issuers with temporary relief from Securities Act registration requirements—during which time they may work towards fulfilling the essential managerial efforts they represented or promised investors they would engage in under the covered investment contract—while, at the same time, ensuring that investors remain sufficiently protected and informed. Issuers that rely on the exemption would remain subject to the antifraud and antimanipulation provisions of the Federal securities laws, including, but not limited to, section 17 of the Securities Act and section 10 of the Exchange Act.
As noted above,
As with offers and sales of other types of securities, an issuer of a covered investment contract must either register its offering or rely on a valid exemption from registration. The Commission's existing rules, however, pose two main difficulties when applied to offerings of covered investment contracts. First, as discussed above,
Second, subject crypto assets may eventually separate from the issuer's representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts, and, as a result, the covered investment contract may cease to exist. This process of the covered investment contract ceasing to exist generally occurs under the circumstances described in the 2026 Interpretation (
Some have asserted that, as currently applied, the Federal securities laws can inhibit the realization of this mutually beneficial outcome.
The startup exemption, set forth in proposed 17 CFR 228.200 (“Rule 200”), would help address these concerns, thereby avoiding unduly burdening issuers as they attempt to fulfill their
As noted in the preceding section, the startup exemption is intended to provide issuers with a regulatory runway during which they could attempt to fulfill their representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under covered investment contracts. Those representations often focus on developing the functionality of, and pursuing decentralization with respect to, the associated crypto network or associated crypto application, which may necessitate the distribution of subject crypto assets.
Rule 200 would be separated into five paragraphs, denominated (a) through (e). Under Rule 200(a), a covered transaction would be exempt from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act if the issuer satisfied the rule's conditions. Rule 200(b) would set forth those conditions, which are as follows: (1) four-year duration; (2) issuer eligibility; (3) one-time use; (4) offering limit; (5) disclosure and filing requirements; and (6) general conditions. Rule 200(c) would set forth the filing requirements for issuers relying on the startup exemption. This provision would require the issuer to file a notice of reliance with the Commission on a new form titled “Form NOR,” a description of which would be codified at 17 CFR 239.605.
Under Rule 200(a), a covered transaction would be exempt from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act if the conditions set forth in Rule 200(b) were satisfied. As discussed in section II.A.1.b above, a “covered transaction” would be defined in Rule 100 as any offer, sale, or other distribution of a covered investment contract in reliance on the startup exemption.
The broad scope of the definition of “covered transaction” is intended to allow issuers to conduct distributions of covered investment contracts in connection with the development, testing, and launch of a subject crypto asset and associated crypto network or associated crypto application, subject to the offering limit and the other conditions in Rule 200(b). Importantly, this would enable the issuer to more easily conduct the various distributions of covered investment contracts that may be necessary in connection with the development of a crypto network or application,
43. Should we exempt covered transactions from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act if the conditions in Rule 200(b) are satisfied, as proposed in Rule 200(a)?
44. Does the proposed definition of “covered transactions” establish an appropriate scope for the exemption?
45. In footnote 192 above, we express our view that covered investment contracts are not “equity securities” and, therefore, are not subject to section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Should we codify this view by, for example, amending 17 CFR 240.12g5-1 to provide that for purposes of determining whether an issuer is required to register a class of equity securities with the Commission pursuant to section 12(g) of the Exchange Act, an issuer may exclude covered investment contracts?
46. Are there specific revisions we should make to the proposed startup exemption to address airdrops? For example, should we provide additional guidance on how to calculate any consideration provided in exchange for the airdrop? Alternatively, should we adopt a separate exemption specifically tailored for airdrops? If so, what should a standalone exemption contain?
Rule 200(b) would include six subparagraphs, each describing a condition with which an issuer must comply in order to rely on the startup exemption. Rule 200(b)(1) (
In this regard, we note that the startup exemption does not impose certain requirements on the issuer that are contained in the other proposed exemption (
Rule 200(b)(2) (
This provision is intended to recognize the fact that, in the early stages of a crypto asset project, a developer or development team may not have consulted legal counsel or expended the time and money (especially if it has not yet raised funds) to form a legal entity through which to conduct their business.
Rule 200(b)(3) (
We recognize that some may view this proposed restriction as overly broad given that it would apply both to the issuer and its affiliates. We also recognize that the limitation on “substantially similar crypto assets”
Rule 200(b)(4) (
Rule 200(b)(5) (
Finally, Rule 200(b)(6) (
47. Should Rule 200 be time-limited as proposed in Rule 200(b)(1)? If so, is four years an appropriate duration for Rule 200?
48. Should we allow individuals or a group of entities or individuals to rely on Rule 200, as proposed under Rule 200(b)(2)? By requiring each member of a group to make the certifications in the notice of reliance and transition report, would the rule discourage two or more persons (whether individuals or entities) from collaborating on projects?
49. Should we include an issuer eligibility requirement that would limit use of Rule 200 only to entities (
50. To ensure that U.S. investors are adequately protected, should we add a condition to the exemption to limit its application? For example, similar to the fundraising exemption, should we limit use of Rule 200 to issuers that have a majority of their executive officers or directors that are U.S. citizens or residents, more than 50 percent of their assets located in the United States, and their business administered principally in the United States? Alternatively, should we limit use of Rule 200 to issuers that have their principal place of business in the United States? If so, should “principal place of business” be defined and, if so, how should we define “principal place of business”? Are there other ways to ensure that U.S. investors are adequately protected and provide them with more easily accessible investment opportunities?
51. Should we include a one-time use condition as proposed in Rule 200(b)(3)? If so, is it appropriate to apply this limitation to both an issuer and its affiliates? If not, how should that one-time use limitation be applied? Is the “substantially similar” standard in the proposed one-time use condition appropriate? If not, should it be eliminated or amended?
52. Would the one-time use condition in Rule 200(b)(3) unduly impede the ability of certain “repeat players” (
53. Should Rule 200 have a $5 million offering limit as proposed in Rule
54. Services rendered to the issuer, including those in furtherance of the development, testing, or promotion of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application, in exchange for covered investment contracts may constitute “covered transactions” that count towards the offering limit in proposed Rule 200(b)(4). Is the proposed definition of “covered transactions” too narrow or too broad for purposes of proposed Rule 200(b)(4)? For example, would the definition of “covered transactions” make it difficult to use the proposed exemption for airdrops? Should we scope any covered transactions out of the offering limit in Rule 200(b)(4)? Alternatively, are there transactions that should count towards the offering limit in Rule 200(b)(4) that are not captured by the proposal?
55. Should we include investment limits for individuals, as we have proposed for the fundraising exemption? If so, what limits should we adopt?
56. Should we require an issuer to satisfy the disclosure and filing requirements in Rule 200(c), (d), and (e) as proposed in Rule 200(b)(5)?
57. Should we include the reminder in Rule 200(b)(6) that the issuer must satisfy the applicable requirements set forth in subpart A of Regulation Crypto Assets? Would this provision help to promote compliance?
Rule 200(c) would include three subparagraphs related to the notice of reliance that the issuer would be required to file under the startup exemption.
Rule 200(c)(1) would require the issuer to file with the Commission a notice of reliance containing the information required by Form NOR, which is attached hereto as Appendix F, prior to any covered transaction. Form NOR, in turn, would require the issuer to provide the following information:
• Information regarding the issuer, including the issuer's name (or names, if the issuer is a group of individuals and/or entities), jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity), address of principal executive offices (if any), telephone number, and email address;
• The name of the subject crypto asset;
• The website address at which the issuer will make the information described in Rule 103 publicly accessible, free of charge, pursuant to Rule 200(d)(1); and
• A certification that the information in the Form NOR is true, complete, and correct and that the issuer intends to fulfill, within four years after the date of the filing of the Form NOR, the essential managerial efforts the issuer represented or promised investors it would engage in under the covered investment contract.
This notice of reliance on Form NOR, which the issuer would be required to file publicly on EDGAR,
Rule 200(c)(2) would provide that an issuer may file an amendment to a previously filed notice of reliance on Form NOR at any time. This permissive amendment provision is substantially similar to 17 CFR 230.503(a)(2) under Regulation D and is intended to permit issuers to update their notice of reliance as they see fit.
Finally, Rule 200(c)(3) would require an issuer to file an amendment to a previously filed notice of reliance on Form NOR: (i) to correct a material mistake of fact or error in the previously filed notice of reliance, as soon as practicable after discovery of the mistake or error; or (ii) to reflect a material change in the information provided in the previously filed notice of reliance, as soon as practicable after the change. The issuer would remain under this obligation to amend Form NOR until the earlier of: (1) the end of the four-year period after the issuer files the initial notice of reliance; and (2) the date on which the issuer files a transition report on Form TR pursuant to Rule 200(e). We recognize that the vast majority of the information required to be disclosed under the startup exemption would be made available on the issuer's website pursuant to Rule 103. Nonetheless, we believe it is appropriate to require the issuer to amend its notice of reliance in a timely manner if the notice of reliance contains a material mistake or error or if there is a change in the information previously provided in the form in light of the fundamental nature and importance of the information that is required to be disclosed in the Form NOR.
58. Should we require an issuer to file a notice of reliance on Form NOR prior to any covered transaction as proposed in Rule 200(c)?
59. Would Form NOR, as proposed, provide market participants the appropriate amount and type of information to make an informed investment decision?
60. Are there certain types of organizational structures that cannot satisfy the disclosure requirement to provide a jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity)? For example, could decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations satisfy this requirement? If not, should we revise this requirement to accommodate any such organizational structures?
61. Should we require disclosure of the address of the issuer's principal executive office only if the issuer has a principal executive office, as proposed in Rule 200(c)? If an issuer does not have a principal executive office, should we require the issuer to provide a different address (
62. Would the requirement in Form NOR that the issuer certify that it intends to fulfill its representations or promises within four years help to ensure that the exemption is being used for its intended purposes? If not, should this certification be eliminated or revised? For example, should we change the proposed standard from “intent” to a different standard? If so, what standard should we use? Instead of the proposed approach, should we require an issuer to certify that it is aware of the time limitations of the exemption without having to certify that it intends to fulfill its representations or promises within four years?
63. Should we require an issuer to file an amendment to Form NOR to correct a material mistake or reflect a material change in the information provided previously? If not, why not? If so, is “as soon as practicable” after the discovery
Rule 200(d) would include three subparagraphs related to the disclosure requirements that the issuer would be required to comply with under the startup exemption.
Rule 200(d)(1) would require the issuer to make the information described in Rule 103 publicly accessible, free of charge, at the website address specified in the notice of reliance at or prior to the time that the notice of reliance is filed with the Commission in accordance with Rule 200(c)(1).
Rule 200(d)(2) would require the issuer to ensure that the information disclosed under Rule 200(d)(1) of this section remains publicly accessible and free of charge at the website address specified in the notice of reliance. This obligation would continue until the earlier of: (1) the end of the four-year period after the issuer files the initial notice of reliance; or (2) the date on which the issuer files a transition report on Form TR pursuant to Rule 200(e). Because the information disclosed under Rule 200(d)(1) is not required to be filed on EDGAR, this provision is intended to prevent a situation in which an issuer technically complies with Rule 200(d)(1) by providing the information at or prior to filing the notice of reliance but removes that information shortly (or immediately) after filing the notice of reliance.
Finally, Rule 200(d)(3) would require the issuer periodically to amend the information disclosed under Rule 200(d)(1) for any material changes. This obligation would continue until the earlier of: (1) the end of the four-year period after the issuer files the initial notice of reliance; or (2) the date on which the issuer files a transition report on Form TR pursuant to Rule 200(e). Specifically, the issuer would be required to amend the information disclosed under Rule 200(d)(1) within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar year if, as of the end of the calendar year, there are any material changes in the information previously disclosed.
Because the issuer may be conducting offers and sales of covered investment contracts throughout the duration of the startup exemption, we believe it is important that the information required under Rule 103 periodically be updated to the extent material changes are made to that information so that investors are sufficiently informed. This is consistent with the feedback the Crypto Task Force received from several commenters.
We believe the annual amendment obligation under Rule 200(d)(3), as well as the filing deadline in that rule, would keep investors timely informed of changes in the information disclosed under Rule 200(d)(1) while also avoiding undue compliance costs for issuers. That said, we are seeking commenters' input on whether the proposed rule appropriately balances these considerations.
64. Do the proposed disclosure requirements in Rule 200(d) strike the appropriate balance between avoiding undue burdens on issuers while ensuring that investors are sufficiently protected and well-informed?
65. Should Rule 200(d)(1) require the information required by Rule 103 be filed on EDGAR rather than permitting the issuer to provide such information on a separate website? Would permitting this information to be provided on a separate website adversely impact the ability of investors and the Commission to pursue claims against the issuer for material misstatements or omissions? For example, absent the requirement to file such information on EDGAR, how would investors and the Commission be able to determine what information the issuer provided to investors at the time they were offered and sold covered investment contracts? Are there changes we should make to address these concerns?
66. Should the information required in Rule 200(d)(1) be required to remain accessible on the issuer's website for the duration of the period described in Rule 200(b)(1)?
67. Should we adopt the proposed amendment obligation and amendment deadline in Rule 200(d)(3)? If so, is 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar year the appropriate amendment deadline? Should the deadline be extended or shortened?
68. Should issuers be required to assess their amendment obligations under Rule 200(d)(3) more or less frequently than the proposed annual frequency? If so, what is an appropriate frequency? For example, should we require issuers to assess their amendment obligations semiannually? Alternatively, should issuers'
69. Should we include a requirement that issuers identify any changes to the filed Rule 200(d)(3) information to better ensure that investors are made aware of changes in the information previously disclosed? If so, how should those changes be identified? For example, should issuers be required to mark the changes made in the amendment to allow an easier comparison to the previous version? Alternatively, should issuers only be required to explain the changes as a note to the information? Should issuers be required to keep prior versions of the information available on their websites?
Finally, Rule 200(e) would require the issuer to file with the Commission a transition report containing the information required by Form TR no later than four years after the date on which the issuer filed a notice of reliance under Rule 200(c)(1). This transition report, which the issuer would be required to file publicly on EDGAR,
In order to satisfy the transition report requirement in Rule 200(e), the issuer would have to provide the information required in Form TR, which is attached hereto as Appendix E. Form TR would be used to satisfy the transition report requirements under the startup exemption, the fundraising exemption, and the investment contract safe harbor.
• Information regarding the issuer, including the issuer's name (or names, if the issuer is a group of individuals and/or entities), jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity), address of principal executive offices (if any), telephone number, and email address;
• Other information based on whether the issuer has or has not satisfied certain conditions:
○ If the issuer has satisfied the condition in proposed 17 CFR 228.400(a) (“Rule 400(a)”)
○ If the issuer has not satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a): (1) a brief description of the covered investment contract for a reasonable investor to identify the security to which the filing relates (Item 4 of Form TR); (2) a description of the current status of the covered investment contract, the subject crypto asset, and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application and the issuer's plans with respect to these items (Item 5 of Form TR); and (3) if the issuer indicates that the covered investment contract has ceased to exist, an analysis supporting that determination (Item 6 of Form TR).
If the issuer had, at the time of the Form TR filing, satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a), then the Form TR filing under Rule 200(e) also would satisfy the transition report condition under the investment contract safe harbor.
If the issuer had not, at the time of the Form TR filing, satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a), the disclosure required under Form TR would be intended to apprise investors, the Commission, and other members of the public of the current status of, and the issuer's plans with respect to, the covered investment contract, subject crypto asset, and associated crypto network or associated crypto application. With respect to the covered investment contract, this would require the issuer to, for example, describe its progress with respect to its representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract and its plans for how it intends to satisfy those representations or promises (if the issuer does, in fact, plan to satisfy those representations or promises). With respect to the subject crypto asset and associated crypto network or associated crypto application, this would require the issuer to, for example, discuss the current status of, and its plans with respect to, the development of the subject crypto asset and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application. It also is possible that, although the issuer has not satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a), the issuer may have determined that the covered investment contract ceased to exist.
70. Should we adopt the transition report requirement in Rule 200(e) as proposed? If we should not require a transition report, please explain why not.
71. Is there any information in Form TR that should not be required? If so, what information should be excluded? Is there any information that we should add to the form? If so, what should be added and why?
72. Are there certain types of organizational structures that cannot satisfy the disclosure requirement to provide a jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity)? For example, could decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations satisfy this requirement? If not, should we revise this requirement to accommodate any such organizational structures?
73. Should we require disclosure of the address of the issuer's principal executive office only if the issuer has a principal executive office, as proposed in Rule 200(e)? If an issuer does not have a principal executive office, should we require the issuer to provide a different address (for example, the address for the issuer's agent for service of process)?
74. Should we provide additional guidance as to what type of information should be included in the analyses required by Items 3 and 6 of Form TR? Are there alternative disclosures that we should require in lieu of such analyses?
Subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets would set forth an exemption from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act for offerings of up to $75 million of covered investment contracts in a 12-month period. This proposed fundraising exemption, composed of two tiers with separate offering limits, is modeled in part on Regulation A. The fundraising exemption, which we are proposing pursuant to the Commission's exemptive authority under section 28 of the Securities Act,
As discussed in section I.B.3 above, a number of public commentators, including some Commissioners, have expressed concerns that the existing exempt offering and disclosure framework is not “fit-for-purpose” for covered investment contract offerings.
Several commenters suggested using existing exempt pathways, including Regulation A, to facilitate capital raising by issuers of covered investment contracts,
Other commenters, however, highlighted some potential concerns associated with using Regulation A, in its current form, with respect to covered investment contract offerings. As noted in section I.B.3 above, some commenters suggested that Regulation A may be legally unavailable for covered investment contract offerings.
Some commenters stated that Regulation A, in its current form, may be ill-suited for covered investment contract offerings. For example, one commenter described Regulation A as “not currently a useful vehicle” for covered investment contract offerings and noted several challenges with it, including, in its view, Regulation A's (1) inflexible disclosure requirements modeled on traditional equity offerings, (2) ongoing reporting obligations that presume a perpetual issuer (which differs from crypto asset projects designed to eliminated centralized control over time), (3) offering limits misaligned with crypto asset projects' needs, and (4) uncertainty regarding whether “tokenized assets that trade via decentralized exchanges or alternative trading systems” can trade freely on the secondary market.
Several commenters expressed the view that Regulation A's disclosure requirements would need revision to elicit the types of information that would be material to investors in covered investment contracts.
Finally, several commenters stated that Regulation A's offering mechanics and conditions may limit the utility of the exemption with respect to covered investment contract offerings. For example, several commenters supported an offering limit for covered investment contract offerings that is higher than the current offering limit permitted under Regulation A (which is $75 million for a Tier 2 offering).
We agree with commenters that Regulation A provides a “strong foundation” and a “practical starting point,”
Thus, we are proposing a fundraising exemption which is modeled, in part, on Regulation A but is tailored in several ways to covered investment contract offerings and their issuers, including with respect to the disclosures required under the exemption. By both modeling the proposed fundraising exemption on Regulation A and tailoring it for covered investment contract offerings, we believe issuers' compliance costs may be mitigated (to the extent those issuers or their advisors are familiar with Regulation A) while, at the same time, avoiding the practical concerns commenters expressed about relying on existing Regulation A with respect to covered investment contract offerings.
The proposed fundraising exemption is intended to address many of the concerns discussed in section II.C.1 above. In particular, we are proposing the creation of rules (including forms and disclosure requirements) tailored to the unique circumstances associated with offerings of covered investment contracts.
At a high level, the fundraising exemption would operate as follows: issuers relying on this exemption would be required to file offering statements on EDGAR. These offering statements would include an offering circular consisting of: (1) the same principles-based narrative disclosure topics as required for issuers relying on the proposed startup exemption (which are set forth in Rule 103); (2) a discussion of the issuer's financial condition; and (3) financial statements of the issuer, requiring varying levels of assurance depending on offering size (falling in one of two tiers), as described in section II.C.2.b.iii below. Issuers who have qualified offering statements under this fundraising exemption would be subject to periodic, current, and transition reporting requirements modeled on analogous provisions in Regulation A, tailored to offerings of covered investment contracts. The proposed fundraising exemption would include additional provisions described below, consistent with Regulation A offerings, including the ability to solicit non-binding indications of interest (“test the waters”) and investment limitations. The proposed fundraising exemption also would include provisions for the suspension of the exemption in certain circumstances and would be subject to the disqualification provision in Rule 104. Finally, consistent with the startup exemption, the fundraising exemption would be non-exclusive (as set forth in Rule 101(a)). As such, issuers would retain the ability to raise capital in registered offerings, rely on other existing exemptions, such as Regulation D or Regulation Crowdfunding, or rely on the startup exemption.
The fundraising exemption would be set forth in subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets and would comprise the following rules: proposed 17 CFR 228.300 (“Rule 300”), titled “Scope of exemption”; proposed 17 CFR 228.301 (“Rule 301”), titled “Offering statement”; proposed 17 CFR 228.302 (“Rule 302”), titled “Offering circular”; proposed 17 CFR 228.303 (“Rule 303”), titled “Preliminary offering circular”; proposed 17 CFR 228.304 (“Rule 304”), titled “Solicitations of interest and other communications”; proposed 17 CFR 228.305 (“Rule 305”), titled “Periodic and current reporting; transition report”; proposed 17 CFR 228.306 (“Rule 306”), titled “Suspension of the exemption”; and proposed 17 CFR 228.307 (“Rule 307”), titled “Withdrawal or abandonment of offering statements.” Each of these rules is discussed in more detail below. In addition to the specific requests for comment in each subsection below, we also seek feedback on the exemption as a whole and whether it is “fit-for-purpose” for covered investment contract offerings and their issuers.
75. Should we adopt a fundraising exemption modeled on Regulation A but tailored to the unique circumstances associated with offerings of covered investment contracts, as proposed?
76. Are there any portions of the fundraising exemption that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the rule.
77. Are there any terms used in the fundraising exemption that we either should define or otherwise modify in the final rules? If so, please identify those terms along with any recommended changes to the definitions.
78. Given the technological innovations and practices associated with crypto assets, are there any modifications or additions to the proposed rules we should consider to better facilitate transactions under the fundraising exemption? Are there particular amendments to the proposed rules governing offering communications and practices (
79. Should we amend the definition of “eligible securities” in 17 CFR 230.261(c) of Regulation A to provide that an “investment contract” is not an “eligible security” thereunder.
Rule 300(a) would set forth a two-tier exemption from registration pursuant to section 5 of the Securities Act for public offers and sales of covered investment contracts. This two-tier approach is modeled on Regulation A with the same offering limits as that exemption. Under Tier 1 (“Tier 1 offerings”), issuers would be permitted to offer and sell up to $20 million of covered investment contracts (which, for purposes of the fundraising exemption, would be defined as “eligible securities”
In addition, for purposes of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 offering limits under Rule 300(a), the amount of eligible securities sold by the issuer and the amount sold by its affiliates would be aggregated together. This restriction is intended to avoid circumvention of the offering limits by precluding multiple affiliated issuers (
Rule 300(a) would permit Tier 2 offerings of up to $75 million in a 12-month period, which is the same limit as in Tier 2 of Regulation A. Some commenters stated that issuers may desire to conduct covered investment contract offerings exceeding the limits in Regulation A and that a higher limit would accommodate issuers' funding needs for the development of crypto asset projects.
To the extent issuers have capital raising needs beyond the $75 million limit in Tier 2 offerings, they may rely on other offering pathways, including the proposed startup exemption. In addition, to address potential concerns that offering limit amounts may become diluted over time, Rule 102 would establish a process for the Commission to periodically adjust the proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 offering amount limitations as necessary for inflation. We are seeking commenter input on the appropriateness of the proposed offering limits.
80. Should the fundraising exemption include both Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings as proposed or should the exemption consist of a single tier?
81. Should the fundraising exemption permit resales by selling securityholders for offerings under Tier 1, Tier 2, or both tiers? Should there be additional restrictions on an insider's ability to participate as a selling securityholder under the proposed fundraising exemption?
82. Are the proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 offering limits appropriate? Should we adopt higher or lower offering limits? For example, should the Tier 1 offering limit be $25 million rather than $20 million?
83. Should issuers be permitted to conduct a Tier 2 offering if they offer less than $20 million? In other words, should we require a minimum offering amount of $20 million for Tier 2 offerings and, if so, would this minimum offering amount provide any benefit to issuers or investors or both?
84. Is it appropriate to apply the offering limits to both the issuer and its affiliates, as proposed?
Rule 300(b) would set forth the eligibility criteria that an issuer would have to satisfy in order to rely on the fundraising exemption. Under these criteria, the fundraising exemption would be available only for an issuer that is an entity organized in the United States. The proposed rule would also require that (i) a majority of the issuer's executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of the issuer's assets are located in the United States, and (iii) the issuer's business is administered principally in the United States.
• A development stage company that either has no specific business plan or purpose, or has indicated that its business plan is to merge with or
• An investment company registered or required to be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) or a business development company as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act;
• An issuer that is or has been subject to any order of the Commission entered pursuant to section 12(j) of the Exchange Act within five years before the filing of the offering statement; provided, however, that the exemption would be available to any issuer subject to an order of the Commission entered pursuant to section 12(j) before the date on which Rule 300 becomes effective, if the rule is ultimately adopted.
In addition, in order to be eligible to rely on the fundraising exemption, the issuer would have had to have filed with the Commission all reports required to be filed, if any, pursuant to Rule 305 or pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the two years before the filing of the offering statement (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports), as applicable.
We believe that the proposed issuer eligibility requirements would appropriately balance, on the one hand, ensuring that a sufficiently broad scope of issuers can utilize the fundraising exemption so as to increase investment opportunities for investors and capital formation options for covered investment contract issuers with, on the other hand, maintaining appropriate investor protections by limiting issuer eligibility. Further, the issuer eligibility criteria are modeled in large part on issuer eligibility criteria in Regulation A, with some differences reflecting that this is a bespoke fundraising exemption intended to be tailored to the unique circumstances of covered investment contract offerings and issuers.
Unlike the startup exemption,
It also is appropriate given that an issuer would be required to provide financial statements under the fundraising exemption (but would not be required to do so under the startup exemption). We believe that a financial statement requirement would become much more administratively complex if an issuer could be an individual or a group of unrelated individuals or entities (as is permitted under the startup exemption). The ability to clearly define a reporting entity and separate its economic activities from those of other reporting entities is a fundamental concept in U.S. GAAP
Similarly, unlike the startup exemption, we also believe it is appropriate to require that (i) a majority of the issuer's executive officers or directors are U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of the issuer's assets are located in the United States, and (iii) the issuer's business is administered principally in the United States. We believe these requirements—which are based on a portion of the definition of “foreign private issuer”
Some commenters and others suggested that we extend eligibility of any proposed offering exemption to certain non-U.S. issuers and other categories of issuers.
85. Should we expand or otherwise modify the proposed issuer eligibility requirements? Why or why not?
86. Should we expand the proposed issuer eligibility criteria to permit Canadian issuers (or other types of foreign issuers) to rely on the fundraising exemption?
87. To the extent that an issuer has relied on Regulation A to issue securities, should the issuer be required to have filed all reports required to be filed under Regulation A, if any, in order for the issuer to rely on the fundraising exemption? Alternatively, should a requirement to have filed all reports required under Regulation A, if any, be limited to a specific time period (such as a certain number of months or years immediately prior to the filing of an offering statement under the fundraising exemption), in order for the issuer to qualify for the fundraising exemption? Why or why not? If so, what amount of time should be required and why?
Rule 300(c) would include offering conditions that are substantially similar to those in 17 CFR 251(d) of Regulation A. With respect to offers, the rule would provide that, other than solicitation of interest (
With respect to sales, the rule would provide that no sale of securities may be made until the offering statement has been qualified.
Finally, if the purchaser is not an accredited investor as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D, the aggregate purchase price to be paid by the purchaser cannot exceed 10 percent of the greater of the purchaser's annual income or net worth (or in the case of non-natural persons, the greater of revenue or net assets for the most recently completed fiscal year).
We believe that the proposed investment limitations serve an important investor protection function. Consistent with the Commission's adoption of investment limitations for Tier 2 offerings under Regulation A, we believe that the proposed investment limitations may help to mitigate the risk of potential losses for non-accredited investors.
Finally, Rule 300(c) would set forth several other offering conditions with respect to sales that are consistent with 17 CFR 230.251(d)(ii) in Regulation A. The rule would provide that in a transaction that represents a sale by the issuer or an underwriter, or a sale by a dealer within 90 calendar days after qualification of the offering statement, each issuer, underwriter or dealer selling in such transaction must deliver to each purchaser from it, not later than two business days following the completion of such sale, a copy of the final offering circular, subject to the following provisions:
• If the sale was by the issuer and was not effected by or through an underwriter or dealer, the issuer is responsible for delivering the final offering circular as if the issuer were an underwriter;
• For continuous or delayed offerings under Rule 300(c)(3), the 90-calendar day period for dealers must commence on the day of the first bona fide offering of securities under such offering statement;
• If the security is listed on a registered national securities exchange, no offering circular need be delivered by a dealer more than 25 calendar days after the later of the qualification date of the offering statement or the first date on which the security was bona fide offered to the public;
• No offering circular need be delivered by a dealer if the issuer is subject, immediately prior to the time of the filing of the offering statement, to the reporting requirements of Rule 305(a); and
• The final offering circular delivery requirements set forth in this rule may be satisfied by delivering a notice to the effect that the sale was made pursuant to a qualified offering statement that includes a link to where the final offering circular, or the offering statement of which such final offering circular is part, may be obtained on EDGAR and contact information sufficient to notify a purchaser where a request for a final offering circular can be sent and received in response.
As with Regulation A, these requirements reflect an “access equals delivery” model for final offering circulars when sales are made on the basis of offers conducted during the prequalification period and the final offering circular is filed and available on EDGAR.
Broadly speaking, the proposed delivery requirements are modeled on the delivery requirements in Regulation A. Those requirements, in turn, were designed to be consistent with the requirements for registered offerings.
88. Should the fundraising exemption include the proposed delivery requirements, which are modeled on the delivery requirements in Regulation A (which were, in turn, modeled on the requirements for registered offerings)? Alternatively, is a different approach warranted with respect to the proposed fundraising exemption and, if so, how should that approach operate?
89. Should we revise the fundraising exemption such that an EDGAR filing by itself (
90. Given the unique technological attributes associated with crypto assets and the blockchain-based technologies that issuers may want to use as mediums to satisfy the electronic delivery requirements, should the Commission clarify how electronic means may satisfy the delivery requirements under the proposed fundraising exemption?
Rule 300(c)(3) would permit continuous or delayed offerings under the fundraising exemption, modeled on the analogous provision in Regulation A, and tailored to offerings of covered investment contracts. The Regulation A continuous and delayed offering framework, most recently amended by the Commission in 2015, is based upon 17 CFR 230.415 (“Rule 415”), but its scope is limited to permissible Regulation A offerings. The Commission adopted Rule 415 in 1983 to promote efficiency and flexibility with respect to capital raising transactions by permitting continuous or delayed offerings in certain contexts.
Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(A) would permit selling securityholders to participate in offerings qualified under the fundraising
We acknowledge that some of the concerns expressed by commenters in prior Regulation A rulemakings about secondary sales may similarly apply to the fundraising exemption.
We believe these concerns would be mitigated, at least in part, by the limitations on securityholders in Rule 300(a) and the principles-based disclosure requirement in Rule 103(b)(4) regarding (i) the material aspects of the issuer's management and related persons; (ii) the material aspects of any conflicts of interest or related person transactions involving the issuer; and (iii) whether related persons are subject to any transfer or resale restriction(s) with respect to the covered investment contract or subject crypto asset and, if so, the material terms of such restriction(s). These proposed requirements would provide important investor protections while still facilitating liquidity for securityholders and preserving the utility of the proposed fundraising exemption for capital formation. That said, we invite comment below on the appropriate scope of restrictions on selling securityholder participation in offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption.
Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(B) would permit continuous or delayed offerings with respect to covered investment contracts that are to be offered and sold pursuant to an employee benefit plan of the issuer. This provision would be substantially identical to the analogous provision in 17 CFR 230.251(d)(3)(i)(B) of Regulation A. Although we are not aware of the extent to which this practice is being or would be used by covered investment contract issuers, we do not believe there is a compelling basis on which to omit this provision from the fundraising exemption. That said, 17 CFR 230.251(3)(i)(B) of Regulation A permits offerings of securities that are to be offered and sold pursuant to a dividend or interest reinvestment plan. Because the defined scope of the terms “covered investment contract” and “crypto asset” would exclude dividend- or interest-bearing assets,
Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(C), (D), and (E) would permit continuous or delayed offerings with respect to (1) covered investment contracts that are to be issued on exercise of outstanding options, warrants, or rights; (2) covered investment contracts that are to be issued on conversion of other outstanding securities; and (3) covered investment contracts that are pledged as collateral. These provisions would be substantially identical to the analogous provisions in 17 CFR 230.251(d)(3)(i)(C), (D), and (E) of Regulation A. As noted in section II.A.1.b above, the only securities that may be offered under the fundraising exemption (or any other exemption in Regulation Crypto Assets) are covered investment contracts. And, as noted in section II.A.1.b above, the definition of “covered investment contract” excludes investment contracts that involve any other type of security, such as a stock or bond that is convertible. Nonetheless, it is possible that an issuer would offer an option, warrant, right, or convertible security that is convertible into a covered investment contract. Although the overlying security would not be eligible to use the fundraising exemption, the issuer may be able to rely on the fundraising exemption with respect to the covered investment contracts into which those overlying securities are convertible. In those circumstances, the issuer may be able to utilize Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(C) and (D).
Finally, Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(F) would permit continuous or delayed offerings with respect to covered investment contracts the offering of which will be commenced within two business days after the qualification date, will be made on a continuous basis, may continue for a period in excess of 30 calendar days from the date of initial qualification, and will be offered in an amount that, at the time the offering statement is qualified, is reasonably expected to be offered and sold within two years from the initial qualification date. As with
Several commenters recommended that the Commission should permit delayed or at the market offerings of covered investment contracts.
Rule 415 permits at the market offerings only for issuers eligible to conduct primary offerings on Form S-3 or Form F-3.
We note that some of the considerations that led the Commission not to permit delayed and at the market offerings under Regulation A similarly apply to offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption. Accordingly, the proposed fundraising exemption does not permit delayed or at the market offerings beyond what is currently permitted under Regulation A (and as described in this section).
91. Should we permit delayed offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption? Should we consider a “token shelf” for secondary or follow-on offerings? If so, under what circumstances? What aspects of offerings of covered investment contracts make delayed offerings appropriate?
92. Should we permit at the market offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption? If so, under what circumstances? Consistent with Rule 415, should we require that there be an “existing trading market” for the covered investment contracts? If so, how should we determine what constitutes an existing trading market?
93. As discussed in footnote 310, proposed Rule 300(c)(3)(ii) is intended to require offerings under the fundraising exemption to be made at a specified dollar amount per security and, by contrast, prohibiting variable pricing. If we continue to prohibit at the market offerings under the fundraising exemption, should we otherwise permit variable pricing?
94. Proposed Rule 300(c)(3)(ii) largely mirrors the corresponding provision in Regulation A. Should we revise the proposed rule to clarify our view, as provided in footnote 310, that the proposed rule would require offerings under the fundraising exemption to be made at a specified dollar amount per security and, by contrast, prohibit variable pricing?
Finally, Rule 300(d) would provide that a request for confidential treatment may be made under 17 CFR 230.406 for information required to be filed, and under 17 CFR 200.83 for information not required to be filed. This provision would mirror the analogous provision in 17 CFR 230.251(e) of Regulation A.
Offering statements filed under Regulation Crypto Assets would utilize a new Form 1-CRYPTO (with a description codified at 17 CFR 239.600), which uses Form 1-A as a model but is tailored to offerings of covered investment contracts and is attached hereto as Appendix A. Similar to Form 1-A, proposed Form 1-CRYPTO would consist of three parts:
•
•
•
As discussed above,
Part I of proposed Form 1-CRYPTO serves as a notice of basic information about the issuer and the proposed offering. Issuers would file Part I of proposed Form 1-CRYPTO with the Commission via EDGAR in XML specific to proposed Form 1-CRYPTO (“Form 1-CRYPTO-specific XML”). Issuers would have two ways to file proposed Form 1-CRYPTO with the Commission. An issuer could use a fillable web form the Commission would provide on EDGAR to input the proposed disclosures for Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO, which EDGAR would convert to the Form 1-CRYPTO-specific XML. Alternatively, an issuer could use its own software tool to file Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO to EDGAR directly by
Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO would require information be provided in response to the following items:
• Item 1 (Issuer Information) would require the issuer to disclose its identity and certain contact information.
• Item 2 (Summary Information Regarding the Offering and Other Current or Proposed Offerings) would require the issuer to disclose the number of units of covered investment contracts offered, the number of covered investment contracts already outstanding, the price per covered investment contract, proposed sales by selling securityholders and affiliates, and estimated aggregate sales of any concurrent offerings under this proposed fundraising exemption. As compared to the corresponding item in Form 1-A, Item 2 would not solicit information about the types of securities being offered, as only covered investment contracts may be offered under Form 1-CRYPTO.
95. Should we require the information in Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO as proposed? Would that information benefit investors and/or other market participants? If so, please describe how such information would be beneficial.
96. Are there other information requirements (other than those in Part I of Form 1-A) that we should include in Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO? Alternatively, should we reduce (or eliminate entirely) the proposed information requirements in Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO?
97. Are there certain types of organizational structures that cannot satisfy the disclosure requirement to provide a jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity)? For example, could decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations satisfy this requirement? If not, should we revise this requirement to accommodate any such organizational structures?
98. Should we require disclosure of the address of the issuer's principal executive office only if the issuer has a principal executive office, as proposed in Form 1-CRYPTO? If an issuer does not have a principal executive office, should we require the issuer to provide a different address (for example, the address for the issuer's agent for service of process)?
99. Should we require the disclosures in Part I of proposed Form 1-CRYPTO to be submitted using a different structured data language than Form 1-CRYPTO-specific XML? Why or why not? If another structured data language would be more appropriate, please identify which one, and explain why.
Part II of Form 1-CRYPTO would consist of the following substantive offering circular disclosure requirements:
•
•
•
As noted previously in this section, Form 1-CRYPTO would incorporate the principles-based narrative disclosure requirements in Rule 103 rather than create a separate set of non-financial
Item 13 of Form 1-CRYPTO also would require disclosure of the issuer's financial condition. Given the potential size of the offering amount under this exemption (
100. Should we require the information in Part II of Form 1-CRYPTO as proposed? Is there information that we should require to be disclosed under Part II other than what we have proposed? For example, is there any information required to be provided under Part II of Form 1-A that also should be required to be disclosed under Part II of Form 1-CRYPTO?
101. As noted in this section above, the information requirement in Item 13 is modeled on the narrative discussion required in 17 CFR 227.201(s) of Regulation Crowdfunding. Is 17 CFR 227.201(s) an appropriate model? Should we instead require a Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations similar to Item 9 of Form 1-A?
102. As an alternative to both the approach taken in proposed Item 13 of Form 1-CRYPTO and the approach taken in Item 9 of Form 1-A, should the information requirement in Item 13 instead be more closely tailored to reflect the characteristics of covered investment contracts? If so, what should such alternative discussion require? For example, rather than focusing on the financial condition of the issuer, should such requirements focus on financial matters related to the development of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application?
103. Rather than cross-referencing the disclosure requirements in proposed Rule 103, should we set forth the disclosure requirements directly in Form 1-CRYPTO? Would that facilitate compliance or otherwise reduce burdens for issuers?
Part F/S of Part II to Form 1-CRYPTO would require that offering statements include financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
Consistent with the requirements in Regulation A offerings, we propose the following requirements for the age of the balance sheet at the date of filing and at qualification:
• If the filing is made, or the offering statement is qualified, during the period from inception until three months after reaching the annual balance sheet date for the first time, include a balance sheet as of a date within nine months of filing or qualification.
• If the filing is made, or the offering statement is qualified, within three months after the most recently completed fiscal year end, include a balance sheet as of the two fiscal year ends preceding the most recently completed fiscal year end and an interim balance sheet as of a date no earlier than six months after the date of the most recent fiscal year-end balance sheet that is required.
• If the filing is made, or the offering statement is qualified, more than three months but no more than nine months after the most recently completed fiscal year end, include a balance sheet as of the two most recently completed fiscal year ends.
• If the filing is made, or the offering statement is qualified, more than nine months after the most recently completed fiscal year end, include a balance sheet as of the two most recently completed fiscal year ends and an interim balance sheet as of a date no earlier than six months after the most recently completed fiscal year end.
Additionally, and consistent with the requirements in Regulation A offerings, we propose that the issuer include consolidated statements of comprehensive income (either in a single continuous financial statement or in two separate but consecutive financial statements; or a statement of net income if there was no other comprehensive income), cash flows, and changes in stockholders' equity for each of the two fiscal years preceding the date of the most recent balance sheet being filed or such shorter period as the issuer has been in existence.
As with Regulation A, these age of financial statements requirements are intended to align with the timing of the proposed ongoing updating requirements.
Consistent with Regulation A, in Tier 1 offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption, issuers would
As discussed in section II.C.2.a.ii above, the proposed fundraising exemption is intended to be used by an entity. The reporting entity concept establishes the boundaries of economic activities to be included in the financial statements. Identifying the boundaries of economic activities is necessary to faithfully present financial information, and there can be practical complexities when those boundaries are not clearly defined.
Further, financial statements will be subject to assurance requirements based on whether the offering statement relates to a Tier 1 offering or a Tier 2 offering.
• With respect to Tier 1 offerings, issuers would not be subject to a financial statement assurance requirement. Issuers in Tier 1 offerings that do not provide audited financial statements would be required to label the financial statements as unaudited. Consistent with the requirement in Regulation A,
• With respect to Tier 2 offerings, the financial statements included in the offering statement would be required to be audited in accordance with either U.S. GAAS or the standards of the PCAOB—by an auditor that is independent under the independence standards of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X—and the report and qualifications of the independent accountant would be required to comply with the requirements of Article 2 of Regulation S-X.
We believe that the proposed assurance requirements would appropriately balance the costs imposed on issuers against the investor protection benefits derived from audited financial statements. We believe the proposed assurance provisions, which are the same as the assurance requirements in Regulation A, are consistent with issuer, investor, and market expectations relating to the audit of financial statements by an independent accountant in offerings involving the amounts that may be raised under the proposed fundraising exemption. We further believe that independent audit firms would be willing and able to perform audits of covered investment contract issuers.
We believe that the proposed approach to financial reporting under the proposed fundraising exemption is appropriate and consistent with investor protection, including because it would be consistent with the approach in offerings under Regulation A. U.S. GAAP provides a comprehensive basis for the preparation of general-purpose financial statements, which is best suited to provide the information that investors need to make decisions about providing resources to covered investment contract issuers. Further, we believe that financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP provide the most appropriate framework for reflecting the effects of an entity's activities on its operating results, financial position, and capital structure.
We acknowledge requests from commenters for additional clarity with respect to accounting standards relating to crypto asset-related transactions.
We agree with commenters that the FASB is best positioned to establish and
As discussed more fully in section IV below, we believe that alternatives to U.S. GAAP would not be appropriate, may not provide investors with the information they need to make an informed investment decision, and may not realize meaningful benefits relative to our proposed approach. Nonetheless, we invite comment below on the proposed financial statement and assurance requirements.
104. Should we adopt the financial statement requirements in Part F/S of Form 1-CRYPTO as proposed? Should we adopt different financial statement requirements for Tier 1 offerings versus Tier 2 offerings? What are the costs and benefits of the proposed financial statement requirements?
105. Are there alternative financial information requirements that we should consider? What are the costs and benefits of alternative approaches compared to the proposed financial statement requirements?
106. Beyond FASB's current efforts, is there a need for additional clarity on accounting for crypto assets and crypto asset-related transactions?
107. Is there a need for additional standard-setting or guidance from the PCAOB or AICPA with respect to auditing crypto assets and related transactions?
108. Is it appropriate to allow the financial statements included in the Tier 2 offering statement to be audited in accordance with U.S. GAAS, or should we require audits to be conducted in accordance with PCAOB standards?
109. Should the financial statement assurance requirements for Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings mirror the assurance requirements that are required under Regulation A, as proposed?
110. Should the financial statements of an issuer conducting a Tier 1 offering be required to be reviewed or audited by an independent public accountant, and if so, at what level of assurance?
111. Under the proposed rule, when the issuer is required to obtain an audit of its financial statements, should the audit be required to be performed by an accounting firm that is registered with the PCAOB?
Part III of Form 1-CRYPTO would set forth exhibit requirements that are similar to those in Part III of Form 1-A, but tailored to covered investment contract offerings and issuers.
112. Item 15 to Form 1-CRYPTO requires an opinion of counsel as to the legality of the securities covered by the offering statement and specifies that the opinion should indicate whether the securities will be binding obligations of the issuer. Are there additional instructions or modifications to the
113. Item 15 to Form 1-CRYPTO takes a principles-based approach to the requirement of filing material contracts. Should we provide examples of contracts that are deemed material or otherwise revise this item to more closely align with the requirement in Item 17 of Form 1-A?
Rules 301, 306, and 307 would set forth some of the filing, amendment, qualification, and other mechanics with respect to Form 1-CRYPTO. Rule 301 would set forth the following general requirements applicable to offering statements and amendments, each of which are substantially similar to analogous provisions in 17 CFR 230.252 under Regulation A:
•
•
•
•
•
•
114. Should we adopt the proposed period for filing non-public submissions?
115. Should we permit non-public submission from issuers whose securities have been previously sold pursuant to a qualified offering statement under the proposed exemption?
Rules 302 and 303 would set forth requirements for the use of offering circulars that are substantially similar to the offering circular requirements in 17 CFR 230.253 and 254 of Regulation A.
•
•
•
Rule 304 would permit non-binding solicitations of interest and similar pre-qualification “testing the waters” offering communications subject to specified conditions, substantially similar to the non-binding solicitations of interest permitted in 17 CFR 230.255 of Regulation A offerings.
Under proposed Rule 304(a), at any time before qualification of the offering statement, including before any non-public submission or public filing of the offering statement, an issuer or any person authorized to act on behalf of the issuer may communicate orally or in writing to determine whether there is any interest in the contemplated offering under the fundraising exemption. Written communications under this rule may include a means by which a person may indicate to the issuer that the person is interested in the potential offering.
Similar to the testing the waters provision in Regulation A, no solicitation or acceptance of money or other consideration, nor of any commitment, binding or otherwise, from any person would be permitted until the offering statement is qualified.
Under Rule 305(a), issuers that have qualified Tier 1 or Tier 2 offerings under the fundraising exemption would be subject to ongoing periodic reporting requirements. Issuers subject to ongoing reporting would be required to file semiannual, annual, and current reports on proposed new Form 1-SC (with a description codified at 17 CFR 239.602), Form 1-KC (with a description codified at 17 CFR 239.601), and Form 1-UC (with a description codified at 17 CFR 239.603), respectively, which are attached hereto as Appendix C, Appendix B, and Appendix D, respectively. Each of those forms would be modeled on the analogous Regulation A ongoing reporting forms and tailored
Rule 305(a)(1) would require each issuer that has qualified an offering statement under the fundraising exemption to file with the Commission an annual report on Form 1-KC for the fiscal year in which the offering statement became qualified and for any fiscal year thereafter, unless the issuer's obligation to file such annual report is suspended under Rule 305(c) or is terminated under Rule 305(d).
Rule 305(a)(3) would require each issuer that has qualified an offering statement under the fundraising exemption to file with the Commission a semiannual report on Form 1-SC within 90 calendar days after the end of the semiannual period covered by the report. Semiannual reports would be required to cover the first six months of each fiscal year of the issuer, commencing with the first six months of the fiscal year immediately following the most recent fiscal year for which financial statements were included in the offering statement, or, if the offering statement included financial statements for the first six months of the fiscal year following the most recent full fiscal year, for the first six months of the following fiscal year.
The financial statements requirements for semiannual reports on Form 1-SC and annual reports on Form 1-KC would be the same as provided in the qualified offering statement. The assurance requirements in semiannual and annual reports would be modeled on Regulation A ongoing reporting: the financial statements in a semiannual report would not be subject to any assurance requirement; and the financial statements in an annual report filed by issuers who qualified a Tier 2 offering would be subject to the same assurance requirement as in the qualified offering statement, as discussed in section II.C.2.b.iii above. The financial statements in an annual report filed by issuers who qualified a Tier 1 offering need not be audited; however, as discussed in section II.C.2.b.iii above for Tier 1 offering statements, if an audit of these financial statements is obtained for other purposes and that audit was performed in accordance with either U.S. GAAS or the standards of the PCAOB—by an auditor that is independent under either the independence standards of the AICPA or Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X—the issuer would be required to file those audited financial statements as well as an audit opinion complying with Rule 2-02 of Regulation S-X along with those audited financial statements. Rule 305(a)(4) would require each issuer that has qualified an offering statement under the fundraising exemption to file with the Commission current reports on Form 1-UC with respect to the matters specified in the form, within four business days after the occurrence of one of the specified events, unless substantially the same information has been previously reported to the Commission by the issuer under cover of Form 1-KC or Form 1-SC.
Rule 305(a)(2) would require each issuer that has qualified an offering statement under the fundraising exemption to file with the Commission a special financial report on Form 1-KC or Form 1-SC if the offering statement did not contain the following: (A) financial statements (which are required to be audited for Tier 2 offerings) for the issuer's most recent fiscal year (or for the life of the issuer or the issuer and its predecessors or any businesses to which the issuer is a successor if less than a full fiscal year) preceding the fiscal year in which the issuer's offering statement became qualified; or (B) unaudited financial statements covering the first six months of the issuer's current fiscal year if the offering statement was qualified during the last six months of that fiscal year. With respect to special financial reports filed on Form 1-KC, they would be required to be filed within 120 calendar days after the qualification date of the offering statement and must include audited financial statements for such fiscal year or other period specified in that paragraph, as the case may be. With respect to special financial reports filed on Form 1-SC, they would be required to be filed within 90 calendar days after the qualification date of the offering statement and must include the semiannual financial statements for the first six months of the issuer's fiscal year, which may be unaudited. Those special financial reports also would be required to be signed in accordance with the requirements of the form on which it is filed.
Unlike Regulation A, issuers who have qualified Tier 1 offerings under the proposed fundraising exemption would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. We believe that requiring ongoing and current reporting for all issuers under the proposed fundraising exemption is appropriate given that the issuer's ongoing efforts to develop its associated crypto network or associated crypto application are directly relevant to the value of the covered investment contract and the subject crypto asset. Further, and unlike the rationale for excepting Tier 1 issuers under Regulation A from ongoing reporting, we do not anticipate that Tier 1 issuers using the proposed rule will be conducting offerings that are “more local in nature” than Tier 2 offerings
We do not believe that requiring ongoing reporting for all issuers would impose undue costs on issuers in smaller, Tier 1 offerings. These issuers would benefit from tailored disclosure requirements, would not be subject to greater financial statement or assurance requirements than in their qualified offering statements,
Commenters supported varying degrees of ongoing periodic disclosure focusing on material changes in the development of the subject crypto asset and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application.
We believe that ongoing public disclosures serve an important investor protection function in offerings involving covered investment contracts. An issuer's ongoing reporting obligations will, however, terminate once the covered investment contract has ceased to exist, including if the issuer has qualified for the investment contract safe harbor. Rule 305(d), discussed in section II.C.2.f below, would address these circumstances.
116. As noted previously in this section, each form for the proposed fundraising exemption is attached hereto as Appendices A through D. The forms generally track corresponding Regulation A forms with changes intended to reflect the circumstances of covered investment contract offerings and their issuers. Should we further tailor the forms to better reflect such circumstances? To illustrate, as proposed, many of the events triggering disclosure in Form 1-UC relate to matters involving the issuer rather than focusing on the associated crypto network or associated crypto application. For example, under Item 6 of Form 1-UC, disclosure is required upon certain changes in control of the issuer. Should we revise Form 1-UC such that the triggering events are more focused on the associated crypto network or associated crypto application rather than the issuer by, for example, requiring disclosure upon certain changes in control of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application?
117. As proposed, periodic and current reporting would be required for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 issuers that have qualified an offering statement under Regulation Crypto Assets. Should we require such reporting for issuers that have conducted only a Tier 1 offering? Alternatively, similar to Regulation A, should we require ongoing reporting only for issuers conducting Tier 2 offerings?
118. Form 1-SC would require the issuer to furnish the information required by proposed Rule 103(b)(1) and (b)(5). Among other things, those rules would require the issuer to provide disclosure regarding its progress with respect to its representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract and its progress with respect to its plan of development. Should we include the proposed financial statements requirements for semiannual reports on Form 1-SC, or should that form's disclosure requirements focus on the issuer's progress with respect to such representations or promises and its plan of development? If we do not adopt the proposed financial statement requirements for that form, should those financial statements be disclosed in some other manner? If not, would the lack of semiannual financial statements result in material risks to investors?
119. As noted in section II.C.2.b.v above, proposed Rule 301(f)(2) would require post-qualification amendments for ongoing offerings in certain circumstances. To the extent an issuer files a post-qualification amendment before the issuer's Form 1-KC is due, and such post-qualification amendment contains the information (including the financial statements) that the issuer would be required to provide on the Form 1-KC, should the issuer not be required to also file the Form 1-KC? That is, in those circumstances, would filing a Form 1-KC provide investors with any benefits, or would it simply be duplicative of the information provided in the post-qualification amendment?
120. Should the proposed fundraising exemption, consistent with Regulation A, permit an issuer to register a class of securities sold in a Tier 2 offering under the Exchange Act by filing a Form 8-A in conjunction with the qualification of a Form 1-CRYPTO?
121. Are there certain types of organizational structures that cannot satisfy the disclosure requirement in Form 1-KC, Form 1-SC, and Form 1-UC to provide a jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity)? For example, could decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations satisfy this requirement? If not, should we revise this requirement to accommodate any such organizational structures?
122. Should we require disclosure of the address of the issuer's principal executive office only if the issuer has a principal executive office, as proposed in Form 1-KC, Form 1-SC, and Form 1-
Rule 305(c) and (d) would set forth transition reporting provisions that would apply equally to issuers in Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings and set forth pathways to suspend or terminate ongoing reporting obligations under the proposed fundraising exemption.
Rule 305(c) and (d)(1) would substantially mirror the suspension and termination of duty to file reports that are in 17 CFR 230.257(d) and (e)(1) of Regulation A. Under Rule 305(c)(1), the duty to file reports under Rule 305(a) with respect to a class of securities held of record (which, for purposes of determining whether securities are “held of record” under the proposed rule, will be as defined in 17 CFR 240.12g5-1) by less than 300 persons would be suspended for such class of securities immediately upon filing with the Commission a transition report on Form TR if the issuer of such class has filed all reports required to be filed under Rule 305 before the date of such Form TR filing for the shorter of: (i) the period since the issuer became subject to such reporting obligation; or (ii) its most recent three fiscal years and the portion of the current year preceding the date of filing Form TR. Rule 305(c)(2) would provide that the term “class” is construed to include all securities of an issuer that are of substantially similar character and the holders of which enjoy substantially similar rights and privileges. The rule further would provide that if the Form TR is subsequently withdrawn or if it is denied because the issuer was ineligible to use the form, the issuer must, within 60 calendar days, file with the Commission all reports which would have been required if such transition report had not been filed. If the suspension resulted from the issuer's merger into, or consolidation with, another issuer or issuers, the notice must be filed by the successor issuer.
Further, under Rule 305(c)(3), the ability to suspend reporting under Rule 305(c)(1) would not be available if: (i) during that fiscal year the issuer has an offering statement that was qualified; (ii) the issuer has not filed an annual report under Rule 305 or the Exchange Act for the fiscal year in which an offering statement was qualified; or (iii) offers or sales of securities of that class are being made pursuant to an offering under the fundraising exemption.
Rule 305(d)(1) would provide that if the duty to file reports is deemed to have been met under Rule 305(a)(6) (
Rule 305(d)(2) sets forth separate bases on which an issuer may terminate its ongoing reporting obligations. These bases reflect the unique nature of covered investment contracts. Under Rule 305(d)(2), if an issuer satisfies the conditions of the investment contract safe harbor
As discussed previously in this section, issuers would use proposed Form TR for any transition report filed under Regulation Crypto Assets, checking the box to indicate the specific provision under which the issuer is filing the report. If the issuer is filing the Form TR to suspend its ongoing reporting obligations pursuant to Rule 305(c), Form TR would require similar information as would be required in an exit report on Form 1-Z under Regulation A. If the issuer is filing the Form TR to terminate its ongoing reporting obligations under Rule 305(d)(2), then Form TR would require the same information as would be required in a transition report under the startup exemption.
123. Should we adopt the provisions for suspension and termination of ongoing reporting as proposed? Is 300 record holders an appropriate threshold in the context of covered investment contracts? Should we define “held of record” by reference to 17 CFR 240.12g5-1 as proposed?
Subpart D of Regulation Crypto Assets would set forth a non-exclusive safe harbor from the term “investment contract” in the definitions of “security” in section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act
As discussed throughout this release, many covered investment contracts eventually will cease to exist. In addition, as noted in section I.B.1 above, the
The Commission recently took steps to increase clarity on this point by issuing the 2026 Interpretation which, among other things, provided the Commission's view that a covered investment contract separates from the subject crypto asset and ceases to exist when either: (1) the issuer has fulfilled its representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract, or (2) the purchaser would not reasonably expect
The investment contract safe harbor would be set forth in proposed Rule 400. Rule 400 would provide that a covered investment contract will be deemed to have ceased to exist, and the crypto asset that was subject to the covered investment contract will be deemed not to constitute or represent or to be subject to that investment contract for purposes of section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act, if the conditions set forth in Rule 400(a) and (b) are satisfied.
Rule 400(a) would require that the issuer of the covered investment contract has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised it would engage in under the covered investment contract and is not making and does not intend to make any new representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts with respect to the crypto asset.
Rule 400(b) would require the issuer of the covered investment contract to file a transition report containing the information required by Form TR with the Commission (which would be required to be filed on EDGAR, pursuant to Rule 101(c)
• Information regarding the issuer, including the issuer's name (or names, if the issuer is a group of individuals and/or entities), jurisdiction of incorporation or formation (if the issuer is or includes an entity), address of principal executive offices (if any), telephone number, and email address;
• A brief description of the covered investment contract and crypto asset sufficient for a reasonable investor to identify the security and crypto asset to which the filing relates;
• A certification that the issuer has satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a) with respect to that covered investment contract; and
• An analysis supporting that certification.
The purpose of this Form TR filing is to apprise investors, the Commission, and the public that the issuer has determined that the covered investment contract has ceased to exist, as well as the basis on which the issuer made that determination.
The investment contract safe harbor would be available to any issuer that satisfies its conditions. Thus, the safe harbor would be available to issuers that have utilized the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption once they have satisfied the safe harbor's conditions. The safe harbor also would be available to issuers that have not utilized these proposed exemptions.
Regardless of the path taken, if issuers have satisfied the investment contract safe harbor, the Commission would take the position in its administration of the Federal securities laws that the reporting, registration, and other requirements of the Federal securities laws no longer apply from the point in time at which the issuer satisfied the safe harbor and thereafter. As with any safe harbor, however, the investment contract safe harbor would apply only to the extent that an issuer satisfies its conditions, and the Commission would not be precluded from challenging whether an issuer did, in fact, satisfy those conditions. For example, if an issuer files a Form TR and misrepresents, either intentionally or otherwise, that it has satisfied the conditions in Rule 400(a), the Commission may take the position that, notwithstanding the issuer's attempted reliance on the investment contract safe harbor, the issuer's covered investment contract has not ceased to exist and the reporting, registration, and other requirements of the Federal securities laws continue to apply.
Finally, even if an issuer has not satisfied the investment contract safe harbor, a crypto asset may nonetheless not be subject to an investment contract under the
124. Should we adopt Rule 400 as proposed?
125. Are there any portions of Rule 400 that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the rule.
126. Should Rule 400 address any of the other terms that are enumerated in the Securities Act and Exchange Act definitions of “security” in addition to the term “investment contract” (such as, for example, the terms “note” or “certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement”)?
127. Are there other conditions to relying on Rule 400 that we should include in the final rule?
128. Would investors and other market participants stand to benefit from the Form TR filing requirement in Rule 400(b)? Should Form TR require different or additional information as compared to what we have proposed? In particular, is there any additional information we should require pursuant to Part I of Form TR?
129. Instead of Form TR, which also would be used as a transition report pursuant to the proposed startup exemption and fundraising exemption, should there be a dedicated form for reliance on Rule 400 (
130. Should Form TR require issuers to include an analysis supporting their determination with respect to the proposed condition in Rule 400(a)? Alternatively, should we allow issuers to certify that they have made this determination without requiring them to include any analysis?
131. Would codifying the 2026 Interpretation in Rule 400 as we have proposed provide greater certainty to issuers? Is there a more objective standard that we should use in place of the proposed standard in Rule 400(a) for determining whether an issuer has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised it would engage in under a covered investment contract and is not making and does not intend to make any new representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts with respect to the crypto asset?
132. Is additional guidance required beyond the views that the Commission expressed in the 2026 Interpretation regarding the types of efforts that may be regarded as essential managerial efforts for purposes of the investment contract safe harbor? If so, which issues should we address on this point?
133. Should we modify the proposed safe harbor to cover only certain circumstances in which a covered investment contract may cease to exist? For example, should the proposed safe harbor only be available for issuers that have fulfilled their representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under the covered investment contract?
134. We recognize that some parties may be reluctant to rely on the investment contract safe harbor because they may view the safe harbor as requiring a tacit admission that the crypto asset previously was subject to an investment contract and that the party relying on the safe harbor was the issuer for such investment contract. Are there changes we could make to the investment contract safe harbor that would address these concerns? Will issuers opt to rely on the 2026 Interpretation instead of using Rule 400?
135. Should Rule 400 also set forth a safe harbor from the term “investment contract” in the definitions of “security” in section 2(a)(36) of the Investment Company Act and section 201(a)(18) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940? If so, how should we revise Rule 400 to incorporate these uses of the term?
Section 18(a) of the Securities Act provides that States may not require registration or qualification of “covered securities.”
Section 18(a) of the Securities Act provides that no law, rule, regulation, or order, or other administrative action of any state (or political subdivision thereof) requiring (or with respect to) the registration or qualification of securities shall (1) directly or indirectly apply to a covered security or to a security that will be a covered security upon completion of the transaction, (2) directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or impose any conditions upon the use of any offering document that is prepared by or on behalf of the issuer, among other things, or (3) directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or impose any conditions based on the merits of such offering or issuer, upon the offer or sale of any covered security.
Sections 18(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4) of the Securities Act specify certain covered securities.
Section 18(c) of the Securities Act preserves State authority with respect to “covered securities” in several ways. Pursuant to section 18(c), States:
• retain jurisdiction under the laws of such State to investigate and bring enforcement actions, in connection with securities or securities transactions, with respect to (i) fraud or deceit or (ii) unlawful conduct by brokers or dealers;
• retain the ability to require the filing of any document filed with the Commission (together with annual or periodic reports of the value of securities sold or offered to be sold to persons located in such state, if such sales data is not included in documents filed with the Commission), solely for notice purposes and the assessment of any fee, together with a consent to service of process and any required fee; and
• have the power to suspend the offer or sale of securities within the state as a result of the failure to submit any filing or required fee.
Congress added these provisions to section 18 of the Securities Act when it enacted the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”). The legislative history indicates that Congress intended for its amendments preempting State law in section 18 to “eliminate the costs and burdens of duplicative and unnecessary regulation by, as a general rule, designating the Federal government as the exclusive regulator of national offerings of securities.”
Based on industry feedback and our own observations of covered investment contract offerings, we believe that most issuers of covered investment contracts will conduct offerings that are neither regional nor solely intrastate. As explained by the President's Working Group Report, “[a]ctivity in digital asset markets is often characterized as borderless, reflecting the ease of transacting worldwide.”
This technological and geographic reality makes the review and qualification of covered investment contracts a difficult and inefficient task for issuers to conduct on a state-by-state basis. This potential difficulty and inefficiency supports using section 18(b)(3) to preempt State registration and qualification requirements in this context. For example, the Commission has previously observed that offerings made through the internet could result in an issuer potentially violating State securities laws absent preemption of State-level registration and qualification requirements.
Preemption would more efficiently allow issuers to communicate with potential investors across state lines, which we anticipate will happen within the ordinary course of capital formation efforts undertaken by covered investment contract issuers given the nature of the asset, the underlying blockchain technology, and potential markets. We anticipate that preemption of State securities laws registration and qualification requirements would reduce issuer costs and promote efficiency by reducing duplicative requirements. We also believe such preemption would enhance secondary market liquidity by eliminating uncertainty as to whether investors need to register or qualify their resale of a covered investment contract in a specific state. Our proposed rules contain investor protections that could address potential concerns that may arise as a result of the preemption of State securities laws. These investor protections include the following:
• Disclosure requirements under the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption;
• Amendment and ongoing reporting obligations under the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption, respectively;
• A “bad actor” disqualification provision applicable to the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption;
• Issuer eligibility conditions under the fundraising exemption;
• A maximum four-year offering duration and one-time use limitation under the startup exemption;
• A qualification process under the fundraising exemption;
• Investment limitations under the fundraising exemption for non-accredited investors;
• Financial statement disclosure and assurance requirements under the fundraising exemption; and
• Application of the Federal securities laws' antifraud and antimanipulation provisions.
We also note that covered investment contract issuers often engage in developing and utilizing associated crypto networks and associated crypto applications that have publicly available open-source code, as well as networks and applications in which ownership records and crypto asset transactions are recorded. Given the unique technological attributes of crypto assets, we expect that many such issuers will publish their source code in a manner that makes it available to potential investors in all states prior to conducting any offering. Put simply, access and information concerning crypto assets and their associated crypto networks and associated crypto applications generally are not (nor expected to be) limited to a single state.
As a result, consistent with the public interest and protection of investors, we are proposing preemption of State registration and qualification
Subpart E of Regulation Crypto would set forth a definition of “qualified purchaser” in Rule 500. The proposed definition would, for purposes of section 18(b)(3) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(3)) provide that a “qualified purchaser” include any person to whom securities are offered or sold pursuant to an offering under Regulation Crypto Assets or an offering pursuant to a transaction by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer with respect to a covered investment contract; provided that: (1) the issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets with respect to such covered investment contract; and (2) the issuer remains subject to, and is current with respect to, such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable.
With “covered security” status, transactions conducted pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets would be primarily regulated by the Federal securities laws. Our goal, as it was when the Commission adopted Regulation Crowdfunding
The proposed exemption would apply preemption to all offerings of covered investment contracts under the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption. We considered whether our proposed definition of “qualified purchaser” should distinguish between Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings conducted pursuant to the fundraising exemption. Unlike what the Commission observed in the Regulation A Release in 2015 with respect to Tier 1 offerings, we do not anticipate that there will be issuers likely to rely on our proposed exemptions to conduct offerings that are more “local” in nature (given, as explained in the background section above, our understanding of the crypto asset ecosystem and its use of technology that spans geographies and aims to develop decentralized networks). There are additional investor protections for Tier 1 offerings under the fundraising exemption that are not present with respect to Tier 1 Regulation A offerings. These include ongoing reporting requirements for issuers and investment limitations for non-accredited investors (neither of which apply to issuers or investors, respectively, in Tier 1 offerings conducted under Regulation A). In light of these investor protection-based requirements applicable to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings under the fundraising exemption, we believe it is appropriate to preempt both types of offerings.
We also considered whether preemption should be available for offerings under only the fundraising exemption and not the startup exemption. Although the startup exemption would not include financial statement disclosure requirements, ongoing reporting requirements to the same extent as the fundraising exemption, or investment limitations, we believe the investor protection-based requirements of the startup exemption support preemption. For example, the startup exemption's disclosure requirements would require issuers to provide the same disclosures under Rule 103 as would be required under the fundraising exemption. In addition, although not as robust as the ongoing reporting obligations under the fundraising exemption, the startup exemption would include an annual amendment requirement to reflect any material changes in the information previously disclosed. When considered in the context of the lower offering limit (as compared to the fundraising exemption), as well as the four-year maximum duration and one-time use requirements, we believe the startup exemption contains appropriate investor protections that also support preemption.
For both the startup exemption and fundraising exemption, a potential investor's need for an illiquidity discount at the time of the initial purchase of a covered investment contract (issued pursuant to one of the proposed exemptions) likely would depend on the extent that a liquid secondary market for securities issued pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets develops, which could be hampered by uncertainty as to whether resales need to be qualified or registered with specific states. In order to encourage capital formation and not inhibit the development of this potential secondary market, we are including the specified secondary market transactions in our proposed definition of “qualified purchaser.”
The proposed amendment also would apply preemption to all secondary market transactions of a covered investment contract—by any person other than the issuer, an underwriter, or a dealer—if the issuer of such covered investment contract has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets with respect to that covered investment contract. Thus, under the proposed amendments, preemption would apply to secondary market transactions of such covered investment contracts regardless of whether a given covered investment contract was initially issued under one of the Regulation Crypto Assets exemptions so long as the issuer (1) satisfies an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets with respect to such covered investment contract and (2) remains subject to (and is current with respect to) such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations (as applicable). For example, if an issuer offered and sold some covered investment contracts under the fundraising exemption, and then later offered and sold some of the same covered investment contracts under Regulation D, secondary market transactions in those covered investment contracts all would be equally subject to preemption.
We believe it is appropriate to apply preemption broadly to secondary market transactions involving the same covered investment contract (regardless of the manner in which they were initially offered and sold) because of the investor protections provided by secondary market participants' ability to access and benefit from the issuer's initial and ongoing disclosures under either the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption. To that end, such
136. Should we adopt the definition of “qualified purchaser” in Rule 500 as proposed?
137. Are there any portions of the proposed definition of “qualified purchaser” that we either should not adopt or that we should change in the final rules? If so, please identify those provisions along with any recommended changes to the rule.
138. Is there an alternative approach by which we might address the concern that State registration and qualification requirements could pose a significant impediment to the use of the proposed rules? Should we treat all offerees and all purchasers in an offering conducted pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets as qualified purchasers or should we impose additional limitations (based on, for example, an income threshold, a net worth threshold, and/or an investment assets threshold)?
139. Are there other approaches we should consider to defining “qualified purchaser” for Regulation Crypto Asset offerings? For example, should we define “qualified purchaser” as any offeree or purchaser in a Regulation Crypto Asset offering by an issuer that meets certain criteria (
140. Should the preemption of secondary market transactions be limited to the resale of covered investment contracts that were initially issued pursuant to an offering relying on an exemption in Regulation Crypto Assets and not another available exemption under the Federal securities laws? If so, how would secondary market participants be able to distinguish between covered investment contracts based on the manner in which they were originally issued, especially for covered investment contracts that involve fungible crypto assets?
141. Proposed Rule 500 generally would provide for preemption of secondary market transactions if issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets and if the issuer remains subject to, and is current with respect to, the disclosure and filing and/or periodic reporting requirements of such exemption. Will market participants be able to determine whether the issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets such that they would know that secondary market transactions in the covered investment contracts are preempted? If not, should we adopt a different standard? For example, should the standard be that it is reasonable for a purchaser to conclude that the issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets? Alternatively, should the standard be that it is reasonable for a purchaser to conclude that the issuer has relied on an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets? Should the standard be something else?
142. Should preemption of secondary market transactions apply for so long as the respective issuer of the covered investment contract (under either the startup or fundraising exemption) is current with respect to such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable? For example, would a covered investment contract holder be able to determine whether the issuer is current with respect to an exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable, such that the investor would know whether preemption applies to its secondary market transactions in that covered investment contract? If not, should preemption of secondary market transactions apply for so long as the respective issuer of the covered investment contract (under either the startup or fundraising exemption) is subject to (and not necessarily current with respect to) such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable?
143. Should we revise proposed Rule 500 such that secondary market preemption would depend on the issuer satisfying its current reporting obligations? That is, should we revise Rule 500 such that preemption of secondary market transactions would apply for so long as the respective issuer of the covered investment contract (under either the startup or fundraising exemption) is current with respect to such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic
144. Should we otherwise modify the conditions under which preemption of secondary market transactions would apply? Should we consider limiting the proposed preemption of State securities laws to only certain aspects of
We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments on any aspect of this proposing release, other matters that might have an impact on the topics discussed in this release, and any suggestions for additional changes. Please be as specific as possible in your discussion and analysis of any additional issues. We particularly welcome comments on any costs, burdens, or benefits that may result from possible regulatory responses related to the items identified in this release or otherwise proposed by commenters.
This proposing release is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), consistent with Executive Order 14215.
We are mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained from, our rules. Securities Act section 2(b)
Offerings of covered investment contracts are different from traditional securities offerings, such as equity or debt offerings. As discussed throughout this release, many covered investment contracts eventually will cease to exist. Although the covered investment contracts are subject to the Federal securities laws when first offered or sold, the crypto assets may subsequently cease to be subject to the covered investment contracts. At that point, the Federal securities laws no longer would apply. As noted earlier in the release, the Commission's existing rules generally do not contemplate or facilitate this type of evolution.
In contrast to traditional securities, whose value may depend on ownership rights and/or expected cash flows, the value of crypto assets typically depends on their utility and security.
Further, many of the Commission's existing rules require issuers to provide disclosures that may not be relevant to investors in covered investment contract offerings, and those rules often do not elicit other types of disclosures that are likely to be material to such investors. Existing disclosure rules are inapposite partially because purchasers of covered investment contracts are unlikely to have ownership rights on assets or cash flows, as they do with equity securities. Unlike traditional securities, many purchasers of covered investment contracts could be potential users of the network or application. These users may derive nonpecuniary benefits from providing capital to issuers of covered investment securities and thus be willing to provide capital at lower cost. This contrasts with traditional equity securities where investors have claims on future cash flows and are generally distinct from intended customers.
Many commenters that provided input to the Crypto Task Force requested that the Commission adopt disclosure rules tailored to offerings of covered investment contracts.
The proposed rules would address the need for a tailored offering regime for covered investment contracts. The proposed offering regime is intended to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation within the crypto asset markets while, at the same time, ensuring that investors are adequately protected and provided with the information they need to make informed investment decisions. The proposed rules would achieve these goals by, among other things, establishing two new exemptions from Securities Act section 5—the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption—as well as the investment contract safe harbor. These proposed rules are described in more detail in section II above.
Although the proposed rules are intended to promote capital formation while ensuring that investors are adequately protected, the proposed rules also may advance broader public benefits. For example, the proposed rules may enhance competition and
We consider below the potential benefits and costs of the proposed rules and their likely effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Many of the benefits and costs are difficult to quantify or estimate with any degree of certainty. These difficulties are exacerbated by the limited public data that would inform how market participants may respond to the proposed rules.
The baseline against which the benefits, costs, and effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the proposed rules are measured consists of the current state of the market and the current regulatory framework, in which issuers raise capital through securities offerings by registering the offer and sale of those securities under the Securities Act unless they can rely on an exemption from registration. The economic analysis considers the existing Federal securities laws and the Commission's rules and regulations, as further clarified through the views expressed by the Commission in the 2026 Interpretation,
The 2026 Interpretation set forth an interpretation of the definition of “security” as applied to crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.
The potential economic impact of the proposed rules, including their effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation, will depend on how the proposed exemptions compare to existing methods that issuers currently may have available to raise capital. Issuers can potentially access a variety of external financing sources in the capital markets through registered or exempt offerings of debt, equity, and hybrid securities, as well as bank loans. We expect issuers to choose the capital raising option that is optimal for them. The choice of financing method may depend on, among other things, the size of the issuer, the type of investors the issuer seeks to attract, and the amount of new capital sought.
Every offer and sale of securities, including covered investment contracts, must be registered under Securities Act section 5 or conducted pursuant to an exemption from section 5. Although registered offerings provide issuers and investors alike with many benefits, such as access to a large pool of investors, liquidity, and lower information asymmetry, they also include costs (
As an alternative to raising capital through registered offerings, issuers may instead offer and sell securities in reliance on an exemption from Securities Act section 5. The Securities Act and the rules promulgated thereunder contain a number of such exemptions. Issuers can rely on current exemptions from registration under the Securities Act, such as section 4(a)(2), Regulation D, Regulation Crowdfunding, Regulation A, and the intrastate exemptions in section 3(a)(11) (as well as the related safe harbor in Rule 147) and Rule 147A. We note, however, that Regulation A is unlikely to be a viable option for issuers that are considering covered investment contract offerings. Covered investment contracts are not “eligible securities” under Regulation A.
The statutory exemptions and those established by our rules include a variety of offering limits, requirements, disclosure frameworks, investor protections, and conditions. Some exemptions (
In addition, some exemptions specify disclosures required to be included in prescribed forms that must be filed with the Commission or otherwise provided to all or a subset of prospective investors. For example, Regulation Crowdfunding has broader disclosure requirements compared to some other existing offering exemptions. Under Regulation Crowdfunding, an issuer must file an offering statement at the onset of an offering and provide company financial statements for a specified period. Under certain circumstances, these financial statements must be audited. In addition to the initial disclosures, issuers relying on Regulation Crowdfunding must provide certain ongoing disclosures through the duration of their offering, including periodic reports and, at the culmination of the offering, a termination of reporting form. On the other hand, Regulation D requires only an initial notice filing on Form D with the Commission, which includes basic offering and issuer information without any financial statements. Rule 506(b) of Regulation D, however, requires issuers that are not subject to the reporting requirements of Exchange Act section 13 or 15(d) to provide a disclosure document to non-accredited investors (if any) with the kind of information as would be required in Part II of Form 1-A (if the issuer is eligible to use Regulation A)
Another characteristic of many of the existing offering exemptions (
Many of the aforementioned characteristics of existing offering exemptions may significantly limit the ability of issuers of covered investment
Table 1 summarizes some of the characteristics of the most commonly used exemptions from registration.
Finally, businesses may also seek to rely on private debt financing. While equity accounts for a significant proportion of the total capital of a typical small business, other sources of capital for small businesses include loans from commercial banks, finance companies and other financial institutions, and trade credit.
The affected issuers consist of any issuer that has decided or may decide to offer and sell covered investment contracts. Any issuer meeting the eligibility criteria
The proposed rules could incentivize some covered investment contract issuers that have used, or are currently using, existing offering exemptions to switch to the proposed startup exemption and/or the proposed fundraising exemption if they provide a cheaper way to raise capital. Further, the proposed rules could incentivize other covered investment contract issuers that have not pursued an offering under existing offering exemptions, or that pursued or are pursuing an offering abroad, to consider an offering in reliance on the proposed startup exemption and/or the proposed fundraising exemption. Importantly, to the extent the proposed rules help to bridge a gap in capital formation for prospective covered investment contract issuers, we expect that the proposed rules could draw new covered investment contract issuers to the market that have not, to date, relied on existing offering exemptions. Thus, the number of issuers utilizing the new provisions is likely to be higher than the estimates in this section.
We also expect that many issuers that rely on the proposed exemptions, or that in the past issued covered investment contracts, would eventually seek to satisfy the investment contract safe harbor to obtain certainty that their crypto assets no longer are subject to the provisions of the Federal securities laws. Some affected issuers could, in fact, rely solely on the proposed investment contract safe harbor.
We first analyzed the number of ICOs that were undertaken before the release of the DAO Report.
Our second analysis considered the number of crypto assets that are listed/traded on secondary crypto asset markets. The creators of those crypto assets have presumably sold the assets to acquirers and are working to develop, or have completed or abandoned development of, the associated blockchain network or application. Using data from CoinMarketCap,
Lastly, we analyzed available data on the potential number of issuers that conducted crypto asset-related offerings under Regulation D, Regulation A,
We analyzed Form D and Form D/A filings from 2009 through 2024 using certain criteria to identify likely issuers of crypto asset-related offerings.
Table 2 provides some summary statistics of issuers that conducted crypto asset-related offerings under Regulation D. These issuers raised approximately $4.7 billion from 2017 through 2024. Unlike Regulation D offerings by non-crypto asset issuers, issuers conducting crypto asset-related offerings tend to rely more frequently on Rule 506(c) rather than Rule 506(b).
We analyzed Form 1-A filings over the period from June 19, 2015 to December 31, 2024 using certain criteria to identify likely issuers of crypto asset-related offerings under Regulation A (
Table 4
Table 5
For Regulation Crowdfunding, we analyzed reported offering proceeds (
Table 7 presents some characteristics of the issuers that conducted crypto asset-related offerings under Regulation Crowdfunding. Compared to the average Regulation Crowdfunding issuer, the issuers in crypto asset-related offerings tend to be much younger (1.3 years vs. 3.7 years) and much smaller in terms of assets ($407,000 vs. $736,000) and revenues ($21,000 vs. $740,000).
As an important caveat, due to limitations of the data, we are not able to determine which of the offerings relying on the existing exemptions would have involved securities that met the specific definition of covered investment contracts in the proposed rules.
Historically, most ICOs included a whitepaper that provided certain information to potential investors. One study found that the items commonly disclosed in the whitepapers were similar to typical disclosure topics in IPO prospectuses, such as business, management, incentive structure and governance, and offering-related information.
Some ICO ventures also employ governance and incentive alignment practices, such as vesting and lock-ups for insiders' tokens, similar to those in the IPO market. The first study referenced above
ICO ventures also disclosed information through sources other than whitepapers. The same study found that 53 percent of the ICO ventures in the sample released the technical source code for their software product or token smart contract through online code repositories (
The proposed rulemaking may also affect financial intermediaries that are involved or may become involved in the placement and quotation of crypto assets subject to the covered investment contracts. Currently, there are many crypto exchanges that quote and allow for trading of various crypto assets. For example, based on data from CoinMarketCap, there are 255 crypto asset exchanges providing such quotes and trades. Further, financial intermediaries involved in the offers and sales of covered investment contracts (as opposed to those “making” the market on crypto asset exchanges) may be affected by the rulemaking. We do not have a reliable estimate of how many current offerings of covered investment contracts involve financial intermediaries. From the 682 crypto asset-related offerings that were conducted under Regulation D from 2017 through 2024, 56 (approximately eight percent) reported using the services of placement agents and/or finders.
Additionally, financial intermediaries are used in certain of the other types of offerings, including registered offerings and certain exempt offerings. To the extent that the proposed rules would impact the number and overall amount of capital raised in other types of offerings, financial intermediaries participating in such offerings may be affected. For example, in registered offerings, underwriters are frequently used to identify potential investors and are primarily responsible for facilitating a successful distribution of the securities offered. While intermediaries are used less frequently in Regulation D offerings, they play a role in some offerings. For example, from 2009 through 2017 approximately 20 percent of Regulation D offerings by non-fund issuers used an intermediary.
The proposed rules would likely generate economic effects for issuers and investors.
The proposed rules would create new exemptions for covered investment contracts under the Federal securities laws. Issuers' ability to broadly and timely disseminate crypto assets and raise capital to finance economic incentives are critical for the development of their crypto networks or applications. Studies have shown that developers of crypto projects significantly benefit from making their products/services available to those who naturally engage with new technologies at an early stage of development, also known as early adopters.
The impact of the proposed rules would, in part, depend on whether issuers elect to rely on the proposed exemptions for capital formation, either in place of other capital raising methods or where they cannot raise capital otherwise. The startup exemption and the fundraising exemption would be tailored to covered investment contracts and have different benefits and costs than other capital-raising methods. We note some differences here and analyze them in the sections below. Compared to a registered offering which has no limitation on the aggregate offering amount and can offer a degree of liquidity that is generally not available for securities issued in exempt offerings, the proposed exemptions should allow issuers to raise capital, up to certain limits, at a lower cost.
Also, the impact of the proposed rules would depend on the extent to which new investor capital is attracted to covered investment contracts or investors reallocate existing capital among various types of offerings. The demand for covered investment contracts offered under the proposed rules would depend on the characteristics of these contracts, such as the utility of the subject crypto asset, its liquidity and security, and possibly its expected risk and return, including relative to what buyers could obtain from other investment opportunities. For example, some buyers of covered investment contracts may also want to hold a token to be used in a particular ecosystem, an option that may not be available in a traditional securities offering of equity or debt. It is also possible that covered investment contracts may attract investors that are interested in holding covered investment contracts for diversification purposes, as these contracts may provide exposure to economic risks that differ from traditional securities. Because they involve various types of non-security crypto assets, covered investment contracts may have different risk-return profiles than more traditional securities like equity and debt.
We estimate the annualized monetized costs of the proposed rules for all affected issuers would be approximately $42,766,883 per year over 10 years, using real discount rates of both three percent and seven percent.
We analyze below the likely benefits and costs of the individual provisions of the proposed rules for investors and the issuers that elect to rely upon them. The estimates of monetized costs below are not discounted.
As mentioned above,
The proposed rules would address the shortcomings of the existing exempt offerings with respect to these unique features of covered investment contracts. The proposed rules, by allowing an unlimited number of non-accredited investors to participate in offerings of covered investment contracts and preempting the State registration and qualification requirements, would enable issuers to broaden their participant base, thus making it easier to achieve network effects. The proposed rules would also allow for the issue and distribution of unrestricted covered investment contracts, thus improving their liquidity and, as a result, the liquidity of the subject crypto assets. This would allow for faster diffusion of the subject crypto assets across potential users and network participants, thereby bolstering an issuer's ability to achieve network effects. Also, the proposed rules, by allowing issuers to raise capital via the sale of covered investment contracts, would allow issuers to use this capital to provide incentives to the various participants in their associated crypto networks or associated crypto applications, thus incentivizing the development and utilization of these networks or applications.
The proposed Regulation Crypto Assets would provide important benefits to issuers and investors. The tailored principles-based disclosure requirements that issuers would be required to satisfy under the startup
The general provisions of Regulation Crypto Assets would provide some important benefits to issuers and investors. Proposed Rule 101 streamlines compliance for crypto asset issuers by allowing the use of multiple exemptions, clarifying when offerings must be integrated, and requiring efficient electronic filings. It protects issuers from losing exemptions due to minor, good-faith errors, and standardizes how to count and price crypto asset units. Together, these provisions increase regulatory flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, and provide greater clarity and certainty for both issuers and investors.
Proposed Rule 101(a) would be beneficial to issuers because it ensures that they can utilize the exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets without being restricted from using other exemptions.
Proposed Rule 101(b) would provide that issuers should refer to Rule 152 to determine whether offers and sales should be integrated. We also are proposing conforming amendments to Rules 152(c) and (d) to clarify when an offering under an exemption in Regulation Crypto Assets has commenced and terminated or completed, consistent with Rule 152's treatment of existing exemptions (including offerings under Regulation Crowdfunding and Regulation D). The proposed rule and conforming amendments would benefit issuers by helping them ensure compliance and prevent them from running afoul of the integration doctrine with respect to other exempt offerings conducted before, or close in time with, Regulation Crypto Assets offerings. This certainty may be particularly beneficial for smaller issuers whose capital needs, and thus preferred capital raising methods, may change frequently.
Proposed Rule 101(c) would require documents filed or otherwise provided to the Commission pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets to be submitted in electronic format on EDGAR. This rule would benefit investors by allowing them to access issuer information to more efficiently aggregate and analyze information across issuers relying on Regulation Crypto Assets. This could improve their investment decisions. Electronic filing on EDGAR could also benefit issuers by providing them with an efficient way to disseminate the disclosures required under the proposed rules and hence supply important information to investors. Electronic filing on EDGAR could also allow issuers of covered investment contracts to more efficiently collect and analyze relevant information from issuers relying on Regulation Crypto Assets, including their competitors, which could provide them with valuable insights into the market for covered investment contracts.
At the same time, some of the general provisions of proposed Regulation Crypto Assets would result in certain costs for issuers and investors. For example, the electronic filing requirement in proposed Rule 101(c) would impose compliance costs on issuers, particularly those issuers that have not previously used EDGAR, which include submitting Form ID
Proposed Rule 101(d) would provide, among other matters, that failure to comply with a term, condition, or requirement of Regulation Crypto Assets would not result in the loss of any exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets for any offer or sale to a particular individual or entity under certain conditions. Proposed Rule 101(d) is consistent with similar provisions in existing offering exemptions (
Finally, Rule 101(e) would specify how to determine the number of units of covered investment contracts and the price per unit of a covered investment contract. That rule would provide that, for purposes of determining the number of units of covered investment contracts as required by any rule or form in
Both the proposed startup exemption and the proposed fundraising exemption have offering limits, combined with required disclosures that are designed to provide appropriate investor protections while also helping facilitate issuers' ability to issue covered investment contracts to facilitate the distribution of the subject crypto asset and raise capital to fund the development of their associated crypto network or associated crypto application. The startup exemption would allow issuers to raise up to $5 million in total for the four-year duration of the exemption. The size of the offering limit combined with the tailored (and, in some cases, less burdensome) disclosures should allow issuers, especially those in early stages of development, to raise capital at a lower cost compared to some of the existing exemptions. For example, an issuer that decides to raise $5 million via Regulation Crowdfunding would have to provide financial statements (which would not be required under the startup exemption) and also would be required to use an intermediary which usually charges a fee. The average and median intermediary fee for Regulation Crowdfunding offerings is approximately 6.6 percent and six percent, respectively.
As explained above, the proposed fundraising exemption would include scaled regulatory requirements based on offering size, which should give issuers more flexibility in raising capital under the fundraising exemption while providing appropriately tailored protections for investors in each tier. Issuers seeking to raise a larger amount of capital would be able to take advantage of the larger maximum offering size in Tier 2 (up to $75 million in a 12-month period) and also would be subject to additional disclosures and other provisions. Covered investment contract issuers seeking to raise a smaller amount of capital could conduct Tier 1 offerings with a lower offering size limit (up to $20 million in a 12-month period) and without being required to obtain an audit of their financial statements.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, offering limits could constrain the ability of issuers of covered investment contracts to achieve significant diffusion of the subject crypto asset across various parties participating in the associated crypto network or associated crypto application to obtain the benefits of network effects. Offering limits also could limit the ability of issuers to raise sufficient capital to grow and develop their associated crypto network or associated crypto application. This cost of the offering limits could be mitigated to a certain extent if issuers who would need larger amounts of capital would in addition rely on Rule 506(b) or Rule 506(c) of Regulation D, which include no offering limits.
During the peak ICO period from 2016 to 2017, the average amount raised in ICOs was approximately $20 million.
Moreover, data on the use of existing offering exemptions by issuers of covered investment contracts suggests that the offering limits in the proposed rules would not constrain the ability of issuers to raise capital. Based on the analysis of crypto asset-related Regulation D offerings in Table 2, such issuers raised on average $11.2 million per offering, which is much lower than what an issuer could raise in a Tier 1 or Tier 2 offering under the proposed fundraising exemption.
Small and early-stage issuers of covered investment contracts, on the other hand, may prefer the proposed startup exemption if they do not need large amounts of capital and may want to avoid the higher compliance costs associated with the proposed fundraising exemption. For those types of issuers, the comparison to capital raising under Regulation Crowdfunding may be more apt. The average amount raised by crypto asset-related Regulation Crowdfunding offerings ($545,300 per Table 6) is smaller than the offering limit of the startup exemption. However, Regulation Crowdfunding also requires financial statement disclosures and involves an intermediary, both of which would result in higher offering costs, compared to the proposed startup exemption.
Rule 102 of proposed Regulation Crypto Assets would require an inflation adjustment for the offering limits of both the startup and fundraising exemptions periodically, but not less than once every five years, to reflect any changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. Such an adjustment would benefit issuers by ensuring that the offering limits do not decrease over time when measured in constant dollars (because they would be adjusted over time to account for inflation).
Proposed Rule 104 would provide that the exemptions in Regulation Crypto Assets are not available if the issuer or any associated person or entity (as listed in Rule 262(a)) would be subject to disqualification under Rule 262.
We expect that the disqualification provision could help reduce potential fraud and thus strengthen investor protection compared with not including a bad actor disqualification provision. If disqualification standards lower the risk premium associated with the risk of
Under proposed Rule 104, the issuer could still undertake a covered investment contract offering if the issuer establishes that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a disqualification existed under Rule 262(a). This would decrease issuer compliance costs, because by relying on a reasonable care standard, the issuer would avoid the potentially large costs of having to do a more comprehensive investigation to determine that no disqualification exemption exists.
Under proposed Rule 104, the disqualification provisions would not apply to any disqualification event that occurred prior to the effective date of these proposed rules. This provision would benefit issuers because it would allow them to engage in covered investment contract offerings without the risk of the proposed rules being applied retroactively.
Nevertheless, proposed Rule 104 would require the issuer to include in an offering circular—or otherwise furnish to each purchaser, at a reasonable time prior to sale—a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification under Rule 104 but occurred before the effective date of the final rules, if adopted. We estimate compliance costs associated with the proposed disqualification disclosure requirements per issuer to be $1,270 per offering.
Issuers that are disqualified from using the startup or the fundraising exemption might experience an increased cost of capital or a reduced availability of capital. In addition, issuers might incur costs related to seeking disqualification waivers from the Commission and replacing personnel or avoiding the participation of persons who are subject to disqualifying events. Also, most existing offering exemptions that are available to covered investment contract issuers include disqualification provisions as well (
As mentioned in section II, the proposed startup exemption, fundraising exemption, and investment contract safe harbor would require issuers of covered investment contracts to provide certain disclosures. The frequency and the breadth of disclosures would differ across the proposed rules. For example, the disclosures under the fundraising exemption are more extensive than those under the startup exemption and the investment contract safe harbor. The proposed disclosure requirements would be tailored to provide information that is material to investors in covered investment contract offerings so that they can make informed investment decisions.
Both the benefits and the costs of the various proposed disclosure requirements would be limited to the extent that issuers already provide the required information voluntarily or have such information readily available. For example, as mentioned in section IV.A.3 above, studies have shown that past ICO issuers provided some of the information that the proposed rules would require (
When information about an issuer is difficult to obtain or the quality of the information is uncertain, investors are at risk of making poorly informed investment decisions about that issuer. Such information asymmetries may be especially severe for issuers of covered investment contracts because they are more likely to be small and at an early stage of their lifecycle and thus may have significant risk factors such as high information asymmetries, few and intangible assets, high failure rates, and difficulty in accessing capital markets. Additionally, developers are often not legally bound to their project, operating with limited funding and frequently no formal legal organizational structure (such as corporation) at the start, the latter being permitted under the startup exemption. Crypto creators may have relatively low exit costs because participants in their crypto networks or applications typically have no ownership stakes and limited or no legally enforceable rights. These considerations may give rise to adverse selection and moral hazard concerns. If investors in offerings of covered investment contracts have limited information about issuers or a limited ability to monitor them, they may seek higher compensation for their investment or choose to withdraw from the offering market altogether, both of which would increase the cost of capital to issuers.
Issuers of covered investment contracts would be able to raise a larger amount of capital (up to $75 million during a 12-month period) under the proposed fundraising exemption. Accordingly, the proposed rules seek to reduce information asymmetries between issuers and potential investors by requiring issuers of covered investment contracts to file specified disclosures with the Commission, which would require financial statements.
These disclosure provisions should improve investor decision-making and could ultimately benefit issuers by improving price efficiency in the market for covered investment contracts. The proposed disclosure requirements would enhance the ability of issuers of covered investment contracts relying on the proposed rules to raise capital, while enabling investors to make informed investment decisions. The ongoing reporting requirements, in particular, would provide a liquidity benefit for secondary sales of covered investment contracts issued under the proposed rules and make the prices of such securities more informationally efficient, should a secondary market develop.
Proposed Rule 103 would set forth principles-based disclosure requirements with respect to offerings of covered investment contracts under the proposed startup exemption and the proposed fundraising exemption. Rule 103 would include disclosure requirements organized into the following topics: (1) covered investment contract; (2) offering; (3) subject crypto asset; (4) management, related persons, and conflicts of interest; (5) associated
The proposed principles-based disclosure requirements for the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets would allow issuers of covered investment contracts to more directly tailor their disclosures to provide the information about their particular circumstances that is material to an investment decision. This ability to tailor disclosures could in turn help reduce an issuer's compliance costs compared to a more prescriptive disclosure requirements regime. The principles-based disclosure requirements would also benefit issuers in the form of lower cost of capital. A number of studies show that increased disclosure and improvements in disclosure quality lead to lower cost of capital for issuers.
The proposed disclosure requirements in Rule 103 could also benefit investors, to the extent that such requirements result in information that is more tailored to the specific circumstances and the needs of investors in covered investment contract offerings. Relatedly, principles-based requirements are less likely to lead to disclosure that is outdated or is less applicable to the particular offering. At the same time, to the extent issuers make incorrect judgments about the materiality of potentially responsive information, the proposed principles-based disclosure approach (as compared to a more prescriptive approach) could result in potentially less precise, incomplete disclosures from the viewpoint of investors. This limitation could reduce the benefits to investors from the disclosure. Another potential cost associated with the principles-based disclosure approach is that it could reduce comparability across issuers and transactions to the extent that issuers report similar information using different metrics, procedures, or mechanisms.
Some of these potential costs could be mitigated to the extent the Commission's staff reviews certain filings made under the proposed fundraising exemption pursuant to the qualification process. Issuers would also remain subject to the antifraud provisions of the securities laws for omission of information material to an investment decision.
Issuers of covered investment contracts that provide the required disclosures could incur an indirect cost in the form of disclosure of potentially sensitive information to competitors. To the extent that such information could be used by competitors, issuers of covered investment contracts, especially early-stage and high-growth issuers, could potentially lose a competitive or intellectual property advantage. The fact that the disclosure requirements are principles-based could help lessen some of this cost. Further, disclosure costs (both direct and indirect) would be mitigated to the extent that issuers already voluntarily disclose required information (
Issuers utilizing the startup exemption would be required to make the information required in proposed Rule 103 available on a publicly accessible website, free of charge, at the website address specified in the notice of reliance at or prior to the time that the notice of reliance is filed.
Giving issuers the flexibility to provide this information on a website of their choice may mitigate some financial and administrative burdens associated with filing on EDGAR. This would also make it easier and less costly for an investor to access the information and make informed investment decisions, compared to a situation where the information is not required to be publicly accessible, or is accessible for a fee. This proposed rule also could generate costs for issuers relying on the exemption. For example, issuers may incur costs in maintaining the website address on which the information will be housed and periodically amending that information to reflect any material changes in the information previously reported. If an issuer already is relying on the other proposed exemption, or otherwise already has this information, such costs would be minimal. Also, this proposed rule could generate costs for investors in such offerings. For example, it may make it more difficult for investors to identify what has changed if an amendment is made to reflect a material change, or to refer to a prior iteration of the disclosure. Additionally, investors may incur search costs if trying to compare disclosures across multiple issuers if they have to collect information on different websites that store and present this information in various formats.
The startup exemption would also require the issuer to amend the information disclosed annually if there
Issuers relying on the startup exemption would be required to file a notice of reliance with the Commission containing the information required by Form NOR, including certain information about the issuer (
Issuers relying on the proposed startup exemption or the proposed investment contract safe harbor, and some issuers relying on the proposed fundraising exemption, would be required to file a transition report with the Commission containing the information required by Form TR.
The compliance cost per issuer would vary depending on the circumstances under which an issuer is filing Form TR. We estimate compliance per issuer costs associated with the proposed Form TR under the startup exemption to be $12,700.
The proposed fundraising exemption would require more extensive disclosures than the other proposed rules in the form of an offering statement, an offering circular, and periodic reports (on an annual, semiannual, and current basis). The disclosure requirements for the proposed fundraising exemption would also be more extensive than those required under some other existing exemptions from registration,
The disclosure requirements in the fundraising exemption would benefit investors by providing them with information that would enable them to more accurately value the covered investment contracts at the time of the offering. The proposed periodic disclosures also would allow investors to evaluate how the issuer is performing over time and when the issuer may terminate its ongoing reporting obligations. Additionally, disclosure by one issuer of covered investment contracts could provide important information to investors when evaluating other issuers of covered investment contracts (
The proposed fundraising exemption would require issuers to prepare an offering statement using Form 1-CRYPTO. Issuers would have two ways to file Part I of proposed Form 1-CRYPTO with the Commission. An issuer could use a fillable web form provided by EDGAR to input Part I of proposed Form 1-CRYPTO disclosures that EDGAR will convert to proposed Form 1-CRYPTO-specific XML, or alternatively, use its own software tool
There are costs associated with filing proposed Form 1-CRYPTO. Requiring issuers to use a form-specific XML for Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO could impose additional compliance costs. Issuers who elect to use the fillable web form described above for their filing are not expected to incur additional software or filing agent costs to prepare the XML submission (beyond the costs of preparing the underlying disclosure). Other issuers may choose to encode their disclosures in XML in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual and will submit the XML disclosures to EDGAR directly rather than manually completing fillable web forms to be converted into XML documents. These issuers might incur implementation costs associated with integrating any new or updated XML schemas into their existing data systems; however, it might be beneficial for them because it allows for greater automation (
The fundraising exemption would require that financial statements provided in Form 1-CRYPTO be prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. This proposed provision would lead to more standardized financial statements across issuers of covered investment contracts relying on the fundraising exemption, thus improving investors' ability to analyze and compare issuers. This would in turn help decrease the level of information asymmetry between issuers and potential investors, thus lowering the discount that investors require as compensation for adverse selection and also reducing issuers' cost of financing.
For Tier 2 offerings under the fundraising exemption, the financial statements included in the offering statement would be required to be audited in accordance with either U.S. GAAS or the standards of the PCAOB—by an auditor that is independent under the independence standards of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X—and the report and qualifications of the independent accountant would be required to comply with the requirements of Article 2 of Regulation S-X. Audited financial statements could lower the cost of capital or increase the supply of capital because of potentially higher investor confidence in the quality of financial statements that are audited by an independent public accountant. One important direct cost for issuers relying on the proposed fundraising exemption would be the compliance costs associated with the preparation and distribution of the offering circular, offering statement, and periodic filings. The financial information required under the fundraising exemption would be more extensive than the information required under several existing exemptions, such as Rule 506(c) and section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.
The requirement of audited financial statements could also impose significant costs on issuers of covered investment contracts, and the costs of an audit could discourage the use of Tier 2 offerings in the fundraising exemption. Audit costs could have a fixed component, which would make them costlier for smaller issuers. As mentioned earlier, issuers of covered investment contracts are likely to be small and early-stage. For such issuers, audit costs could be relatively large, especially because of the fixed costs component. Based on data from registered IPOs with proceeds under $75 million from 2014 through 2024 by issuers that would have been potentially eligible for the fundraising exemption, the average (median) total accounting fees amounted to 1.9 percent (0.9 percent) of gross offering proceeds, where reported separately.
We estimate compliance costs per issuer associated with Form 1-CRYPTO to be $455,531.22 for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings (including audit costs).
The proposed startup and fundraising exemptions would allow issuers to offer and sell unrestricted covered investment contracts to potential purchasers. This could improve the liquidity of these contracts, and that of the subject crypto assets, and make them more attractive to potential purchasers compared to a scenario where the covered investment contracts were restricted securities. As mentioned above, the ability of issuers to provide freely tradable and liquid underlying crypto assets is key for incentivizing participation in the crypto networks/applications that support the ability of those networks/applications to develop and achieve network effects. The ability, because of the proposed rules, of issuers to offer and sell unrestricted covered investment contracts would likely enhance the tradability and liquidity of the subject crypto assets, thereby attracting more participants and facilitating the scaling of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application to obtain the benefits of network effects. It would also allow issuers to raise capital to fund economic incentives at the early stages of the network/application, which could be important for keeping it secure, useful, and active. The ability of issuers to offer and sell unrestricted covered investment contracts would also lower investor trading costs.
Issuers of covered investment contracts could benefit in two main ways: (1) increased capital raising, and (2) better pricing, in terms of lower discounts to be offered to investors. The ability to purchase unrestricted covered investment contracts could make more investors interested in an offering under the proposed exemptions, as compared to an offering pursuant to which they receive restricted securities, thus allowing an issuer to raise more capital, more quickly and efficiently. Additionally, if investors in an offering were to obtain illiquid securities, then they would likely require a discount to the fair market price of these securities to compensate them for their limited ability to trade in these securities. The ability to purchase unrestricted covered investment contracts under the proposed rules would reduce potential investors' need for such an illiquidity discount at the time of initial purchase and further lower the issuers' cost of capital raising. In addition, to the extent that this results in active secondary trading, it would promote enhanced price discovery and greater informational efficiency of covered investment contract prices.
Quantifying the benefit for issuers of potentially lower illiquidity discounts on covered investment contracts offerings, as a result of the proposed rules, is difficult. Academic studies have tried to estimate the magnitude of the illiquidity discount using various types of transactions, including private or public companies. One study examined the discount between unrestricted and restricted shares of the same public issuer. It found that such illiquidity (also called “marketability”) discount varies between 5.2 percent and 5.6 percent.
The magnitude of the potential benefits associated with unrestricted covered investment contracts would depend on the degree to which a liquid secondary market for covered investment contracts develops after an initial offering. If such a market does not develop, or takes time to develop, the magnitude of the benefits associated with unrestricted covered investment contracts may be fairly small.
The startup exemption is intended to provide issuers with a regulatory runway during which they could attempt to fulfill their representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under covered investment contracts. Proposed Rule 200(b)(1) would require the covered transaction to occur during the period beginning after the issuer has filed a notice of reliance and ending on the date that is the earlier of (i) four years after the date of such filing or (ii) the date on which the issuer files a transition report pursuant to proposed Rule 200(e). The four-year maximum period specified by the proposed rule would benefit issuers by providing them with a reasonable amount of time to fulfill their representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts under covered investment contracts. Issuers relying on the exemption would be able to perform the tasks needed to develop, test, and launch their projects with requirements that are tailored to covered investment contracts and their issuers for the duration of the exemption. It could also generate costs for issuers for which four years is not enough to fulfill such representations or promises. Such issuers may need to rely on other, potentially more expensive, exemptions to raise capital needed to fulfill such representations or promises.
The four-year maximum period specified by the proposed rule could also benefit investors in covered investment contracts by providing them with a better understanding of the potential “outside date” within which the issuer likely would seek to fulfill its representations or promises under the covered investment contract. For example, this would allow investors who prefer to hold covered investment contracts, or generally prefer to hold securities instead of non-security crypto assets, to sell such covered investment contracts within this four-year period as
Proposed Rule 200(b)(2) would state that the issuer may be an entity, an individual, or a group of individuals or entities. This provision would be beneficial to issuers since it would allow an issuer that is in the early stages of a project, as well as a developer or development team that may not have consulted legal counsel or spent the time and money to form a legal entity through which to conduct their business, to be able to use the exemption and raise capital. Also, proposed Rule 200(b)(2) would require that if the issuer is composed of a group of individuals/entities, each member of the group must satisfy the conditions and provide the required certifications. This requirement would strengthen investor protection by preventing potential evasion of the proposed rules through organizational structuring.
Proposed Rule 200(b)(3) would require that the issuer and its affiliates have not previously relied on the startup exemption for the subject crypto asset, or a substantially similar crypto asset, other than with respect to covered transactions that occurred during the period set forth in Rule 200(b)(1). This requirement would strengthen investor protection by preventing a single issuer from circumventing the offering size limitation by permitting multiple affiliates of an issuer, using the subject crypto asset, or a substantially similar crypto asset, to raise collectively more than $5 million without providing more disclosures or being subject to additional requirements commensurate with the larger amount of capital being raised. This rule could also impose costs on issuers that have multiple affiliates engaged in developing associated crypto networks or associated crypto applications, to the extent that those applications and networks use the same or a substantially similar subject crypto asset.
We estimate compliance costs per issuer associated with the startup exemption to be $48,641.
The fundraising exemption would benefit issuers of covered investment contracts by providing a framework to more efficiently raise capital and would increase issuer choice when relying on external financing for capital formation. The proposed fundraising exemption would benefit investors because the conditions of the exemption would ensure that investors are adequately informed and protected. On the other hand, issuer eligibility criteria may prevent certain issuers from using the exemption, thus making them rely on costlier or more burdensome sources of capital. Additionally, the investment limitation may reduce the ability of some investors to invest as much as they would like in potentially beneficial investment opportunities and may limit the attractiveness of the proposed fundraising exemption to prospective issuers, thereby reducing the potential capital formation and competition benefits.
The eligibility criteria in proposed Rule 300(b) would strengthen investor protection by limiting the set of issuers that can rely on the proposed fundraising exemption.
Investors, especially less sophisticated investors, may find it difficult and costly to determine the valuation and risk of securities of a development stage company that either has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated that its business plan is to merge with or acquire an unidentified company or companies, so the exclusion of those companies from the proposed fundraising exemption may reduce investor costs or risks. Similarly, the specialized nature of investment companies and business development companies would warrant different disclosures than what we propose in the fundraising exemption for a proper understanding of an investment in their securities. Excluding issuers of covered investment contracts that were subject to a denial, suspension, or revocation order by the Commission pursuant to Exchange Act section 12(j) within the five years preceding the filing of the offering statement may help incentivize issuers to comply with their obligations under the Exchange Act, including their ongoing reporting obligations, and will prevent issuers with a history of non-compliance from relying on the fundraising exemption after they terminate or suspend their Exchange Act reporting obligations. This would further enhance investor protection.
Additionally, an issuer seeking to raise capital via the fundraising exemption would be required to be an entity organized under, and subject to, the laws of the United States, or any State or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia; provided further that (i) a majority of the issuer's executive officers or directors must be U.S. citizens or residents, (ii) more than 50 percent of the issuer's assets must be located in the United States, and (iii) the issuer's business must be administered principally in the United States. These conditions may facilitate the ability of investors to seek recourse against issuers in the event of fraud or other misconduct and provide domestic investors with more easily accessible investment opportunities. It would also make it easier for investors to collect and analyze information and value issuers' covered investment contracts.
To the extent that some issuers would be ineligible to rely on the proposed exemption to raise capital, they may have to rely on costlier or more burdensome sources of capital or alter their organizational structure in order to qualify for the exemption. We also
The proposed fundraising exemption would allow sales to be made only after the offering statement has been qualified. Subjecting the offering statement to Commission staff review (pursuant to delegated authority from the Commission
Under the proposed rules, if the purchaser is not an accredited investor as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D,
The purchaser limitations could lead to a more dispersed non-accredited investor base or a higher proportion of accredited investors in the investor base to the extent that the 10 percent threshold impacts investor participation. If non-accredited investors face investment limits, then issuers may need to solicit a greater number of non-accredited investors, or more accredited investors, to raise the capital they need. This could facilitate increased liquidity as there would be more potential sellers for interested purchasers, compared to a scenario without purchaser limitations.
There could be costs associated with investment limits. In particular, the investment limitation could curtail potential gains for non-accredited investors in Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings. The investment limits may reduce the ability of some investors to invest as much as they would like in potentially beneficial investment opportunities and may limit the attractiveness of the proposed fundraising exemption to prospective issuers, thereby reducing the potential capital formation and competition benefits. The investment limitation could result in some issuers needing to solicit a greater number of investors or to solicit additional accredited investors, which could lead to additional costs for those issuers or limit capital formation if they are unable to attract additional investors.
Rule 300(c) would provide that, other than solicitation of interest communications pursuant to Rule 304 (
The ability to rely on investor representations should help mitigate potential costs that issuers could otherwise incur to comply with the investment limitation provisions.
The proposed fundraising exemption would permit continuous and delayed offerings including selling securityholders, as described in Rule 300(c)(3)(i). Rule 300(c)(3)(i)(F) would allow issuers to undertake continuous offerings that may continue for a period of more than 30 calendar days from the date of initial qualification (if offered in an amount that, at the time the offering statement is qualified, is reasonably expected to be offered and sold within two years from the initial qualification date). This would benefit issuers by allowing them to offer and sell securities over time, as permitted in continuous offerings, to raise capital. The magnitude of this benefit for issuers is likely large.
Additionally, the ability to conduct continuous or delayed offerings would benefit issuers because they would allow selling securityholders to participate in offerings qualified under the fundraising exemption, subject to the limitations on offering amount in proposed Rule 300(a), thus facilitating liquidity for existing securityholders and new investors in the offering. Also, permitting selling by insiders in offerings under the proposed exemption could facilitate a more widespread distribution of the subject crypto assets, which may help issuers fulfill their representations and promises under the covered investment contract, including, for example, more efficiently meeting decentralization targets.
The ability to conduct continuous or delayed offerings under the fundraising exemption may generate costs for issuers and investors. For example, allowing selling by insiders in such offerings could diminish their incentives to work towards developing and finalizing the functionality of the associated crypto network or associated crypto application, thus creating costs for investors in terms of lower value of covered investment contracts. Some of these costs would be mitigated by the limitations placed on holders of covered investment contracts in Rule 300(a) and the principles-based disclosure requirement regarding management of the issuer, related persons of the issuer, and conflicts of interest and related person transactions involving the issuer in Rule 103(b)(4).
Proposed Rule 300(d) would provide that a request for confidential treatment may be made under 17 CFR 230.406 for information required to be filed, and 17 CFR 200.83 for information not required to be filed. This proposed rule would benefit issuers by allowing them to keep potentially sensitive information from being disclosed to their competitors, which may negatively affect their competitive advantages.
The proposed rules would allow the issuers relying on the fundraising exemption to make non-binding solicitations of interest, indications of interest, and similar communications (“testing the waters”) prior to qualification of the offering statement. Allowing these communications would enable issuers of covered investment contracts to determine market interest in their securities before incurring the costs of preparing and filing an offering statement. If, after testing the waters, the issuer of covered investment contracts is not confident that it would attract sufficient investor interest, this issuer could consider alternate methods of raising capital and thereby avoid the costs of an unsubscribed or under-subscribed offering. Allowing testing the waters at any time prior to qualification of the offering statement, rather than only prior to filing of the offering statement with the Commission, may increase the likelihood that the issuer will raise the desired amount of capital. This option may be useful for smaller issuers of covered investment contracts, especially early-stage issuers, first-time issuers, and other issuers with a high degree of information asymmetry, for which an unsuccessful offering could result in being unable to raise the needed capital and incurring additional expenses.
Expanding the permissible use of testing the waters communications could also increase the type and extent of information available to investors, which could lead to more efficient prices for the offered covered investment contracts. The proposed rules would permit testing the waters for an expanded period, from the moment an issuer decides to approach investors to the offering qualification. Further, requiring issuers using testing the waters solicitations after the offering statement is publicly filed to provide the offering statement with the testing the waters materials (or provide information about where it can be accessed), and to update it and redistribute updates in the event of material changes, would allow investors to make better informed investment decisions. For example, investors could glean important information regarding the progress of the offering before and after the offering statement is publicly filed that may affect their decision of whether and how much to invest in the offering. This feature of the exempt framework has proved useful for Regulation A issuers. For example, on average 37 percent of qualified Regulation A offerings from 2015 through 2024 used testing the waters communications. There was a greater reliance (approximately 47 percent) on the provision for larger qualified offerings (
We estimate compliance costs per issuer associated with the fundraising exemption to be $973,145.12.
Under proposed Rule 400, a covered investment contract would be deemed to have ceased to exist, and the crypto asset that was subject to the covered investment contract would be deemed not to constitute or represent or to be subject to that investment contract for purposes of Securities Act section 2(a)(1)
By codifying the Commission's view articulated in the 2026 Interpretation, the investment contract safe harbor could provide greater certainty to both issuers and investors as to when a crypto asset no longer is subject to an investment contract. This would make it easier for investors to identify when covered investment contracts would cease to exist and to make better investment decisions regarding covered investment contracts in their portfolio. Another potential benefit of the safe harbor could be informing the market and investors that the issuer believes the crypto asset is no longer subject to an investment contract. There also could be related investor protection benefits associated with requiring the issuer to include its conclusions/analysis in a Commission filing. These benefits will only be realized to the extent an issuer takes advantage of the safe harbor rather than relying on the 2026 Interpretation.
For issuers that already have filed a Form TR under the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption, there would be no incremental costs from this requirement. For issuers that have not utilized these proposed exemptions, we estimate compliance costs per issuer associated with filing proposed Form TR under the investment contract safe harbor to be $19,431.
Proposed Rule 500 would set forth a new definition of “qualified purchaser.” The proposed definition would provide that a “qualified purchaser” includes any person to whom securities are offered or sold pursuant to an offering under Regulation Crypto Assets or an offering pursuant to a transaction by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer with respect to a covered investment contract; provided that: (1) the issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets with respect to such covered investment contract; and (2) the issuer remains subject to, and is current with respect to, such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable. Thus, the proposed rule would preempt State securities laws registration and qualification requirements with respect to the initial sales of covered investment contracts under Regulation Crypto Assets and certain resales of covered investment contracts.
The proposed preemption of State securities law registration and qualification requirements for primary
As with preemption of State registration and qualification requirements for primary offerings under Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding, preemption of State registration and qualification requirements for primary offerings under the proposed offering exemptions would likely reduce covered investment contract issuers' time and compliance costs, thus making it cheaper to raise capital via the startup exemption as well as the fundraising exemption. A 2012 GAO report found that compliance with State securities registration and qualification requirements was one of the factors that appeared to have influenced the infrequent use of the original Regulation A by small businesses, before the Commission preempted State registration and qualification requirements for purchasers in Tier 2 Regulation A offerings in 2015.
In addition, unlike Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding, the proposed exemptions would preempt State registration and qualification for secondary trading. Absent preemption for secondary trading, issuers of covered investment contracts would need to comply with State law registration and qualification requirements applicable to resales in every jurisdiction in which such resales occur, which could result in significant compliance costs and potentially reduce the number of jurisdictions in which secondary trading occurs.
Preemption of secondary sales may also lower offering costs because investors may be less likely to demand liquidity discounts. For covered investment contract issuers that decide to rely on any of the proposed exemptions and at the same time use other exemptions without preemption (such as Securities Act section 4(a)(2), Securities Act section 3(a)(11), or Rule 504 of Regulation D) to raise capital, the proposed State securities law preemption would lower the cost of those offerings as well, because secondary market transactions involving the covered investment contracts sold pursuant to those existing exemptions also would be preempted by the proposed rule if the issuer has also satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets, and the issuer remains subject to and current with respect to such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations. In addition, to the extent that the proposed preemption of State securities registration and qualification requirements for certain resales results in active secondary trading, it might promote enhanced price discovery and greater informational efficiency of covered investment contract prices.
The proposed preemption of State securities registration and qualification requirements could also benefit investors in covered investment contracts because the issuers' cost savings from not having to register or qualify their offerings with State regulators ultimately may be utilized to complete the issuers' essential managerial efforts. Further, by extending the preemption of State registration and qualification requirements to certain resales of covered investment contracts, the proposed rule also would benefit investors in covered investment contracts through potentially enhanced liquidity. To the extent that easier resales may draw additional investors, this may increase interest in primary
We recognize that the proposed preemption of State registration and qualification requirements may remove an additional layer of investor protection provided by their review process. These may include additional investor protections arising from the resources of State regulators that may aid in detecting fraud and facilitating issuer compliance. In addition, merit-based review of offerings undertaken by some States may, in some cases, provide a level of investor protection different from the disclosure-based review undertaken by Commission staff.
The proposed rules would likely lead to improvements in efficiency as they would facilitate a distribution of crypto assets in compliance with the Federal securities laws. To the extent such distribution constitutes an offer or sale of a covered investment contract, the proposed rules would provide tailored exemptions that address the key shortcomings of existing offering exemptions vis-a-vis covered investment contracts and include investor protection features. The proposed exemptions would enhance efficiency by enabling issuers of covered investment contracts to rely on and fund economic incentives that are essential for the development and functioning of their associated crypto networks or associated crypto applications. The proposed rules would allow issuers to more efficiently and quickly develop, and incentivize the development of, the functionalities of their associated crypto networks or associated crypto applications. Additionally, the proposed rules would also enable networks to take root that otherwise would not have been able to, further enhancing efficiency.
Also, issuers of covered investment contracts may be able to optimize their financing strategy, resulting in a lower cost of capital or more timely access to financing. The proposed rules are intended to facilitate the offering process and entry into capital markets for issuers that find existing exemptions to be too costly or inadequate for their funding needs, or otherwise not fit for purpose. To the extent that those issuers raise capital at lower costs than they otherwise could, the proposed rules would generate efficiency gains for them.
In addition, if issuers' covered investment contracts represent valuable projects not found elsewhere in the capital markets, adding them to the investment choices, particularly for non-accredited investors, may result in more efficient capital allocation in investor portfolios, and more efficient matching between investors and companies seeking capital. This will allow investors with various risk preferences to invest in the offerings best suited to their risk tolerance, thus potentially improving allocative efficiency.
Requiring ongoing disclosures under the fundraising exemption, and requiring the issuers relying on the startup exemption to make certain information publicly accessible, free of charge and to periodically amend that information to reflect material changes, would provide investors with important information, allowing them to identify investment opportunities best suited for their level of risk tolerance and re-evaluate the issuer's prospects over time, resulting in better informed investment decisions and improved allocative efficiency of capital. By requiring issuers to file these disclosures on EDGAR and/or on a publicly available website, the proposed rules could make it easier for investors to collect and compare information across issuers, both within and outside of the market for covered investment contracts.
The proposed disclosure requirements also could improve informational efficiency in the market, making it easier for investors to identify a broader and more diverse range of covered investment contract offerings and allocate capital more efficiently. The net effect could be to enhance both capital formation and allocative efficiency. Additionally, the required disclosures would provide investors with a useful benchmark to evaluate other crypto asset issuers both within and outside of the covered investment contract market.
In addition, to the extent that the proposed rules result in active trading, it might promote enhanced price discovery and greater informational efficiency of covered investment contract prices.
If the proposed rules improve access to, or lower the cost of, capital for issuers of covered investment contracts and strengthen their ability to develop and launch their crypto projects, the proposed rules may enhance competition among issuers for developing product market applications of their crypto assets, thus spurring innovation and entrepreneurship. To the extent that more issuers of covered investment contracts use the proposed rules for capital raising, the proposed rules may also promote competition among eligible issuers in the market for investor capital. The proposed rules may also promote competition between smaller and larger issuers of covered investment contracts by lowering capital-raising costs for smaller issuers.
To the extent that more investors decide to invest in covered investment
The proposed rules would introduce new exemptions that would facilitate capital formation by issuers of covered investment contracts because they are tailored to accommodate covered investment contracts. For example, the exemptions available under the proposed rules are intended to reduce certain burdens identified by commenters and others with respect to covered investment contract offerings under existing exemptions. The proposed rules also would set forth exemptions with various offering amount limits and tailored disclosure requirements. Thus, the availability of the new exemptions under the proposed rules could attract new issuers of covered investment contracts to the capital markets.
Additionally, the availability of the proposed exemptions could result in issuers of covered investment contracts switching from existing exemptions to the proposed exemptions. These issuers may be able to raise more capital under the proposed exemptions as compared to what they could raise under the existing exemptions. The proposed rules, therefore, would likely increase capital formation. By facilitating capital raising by issuers of covered investment contracts, the proposed rules would further enable these issuers to, among other things, finance the development of their crypto projects and the delivery of their products and services to potential users, as well as pursue projects that would have been forgone due to a lack of capital.
The impact of the proposed rules on an issuer's ability to raise capital will depend on whether new investor capital is attracted to the crypto asset markets and on whether investors reallocate existing capital among various types of offerings. Investor demand for covered investment contracts would depend on the expected risk, return, and liquidity of the offered securities and, in particular, on how these characteristics compare to what investors can obtain from securities in other exempt offerings and in registered offerings. Investor demand also would depend on whether the disclosure requirements in the proposed rules are sufficient to enable investors to evaluate the characteristics of offerings involving covered investment contracts.
Increased secondary market liquidity resulting from some of the features of the proposed rules (
If, on the other hand, some issuers that are currently relying on existing exemptions decide that the proposed rules are advantageous ways for them to raise capital (
Proposed Rule 103 would set forth principles-based disclosure requirements with respect to offerings of covered investment contracts. We could have proposed more prescriptive disclosure requirements instead. One benefit of a more prescriptive disclosure approach for investors is that it could result in potentially more precise and complete disclosures for investors, since such an approach usually relies on bright lines to determine whether and what type of disclosure is required. Another potential benefit associated with the prescriptive disclosure approach is that it could improve comparability across issuers and transactions because issuers would be required to report similar information using the same metrics, procedures, or mechanisms. This could be especially beneficial to retail investors who may not have the resources or ability to evaluate information based on different metrics or on alternative sources, which could be the case under the proposed principles-based disclosure. A more prescriptive approach could also benefit issuers by potentially reducing the cost to provide the required disclosures. Specifically, an issuer could look to the bright line requirements when determining whether disclosure is necessary and may not need to spend the time and resources involved in applying judgment as to the materiality of particular information in the context of the issuer's overall business and financial circumstances.
However, a more prescriptive disclosure regime would also have costs. In particular, it would provide issuers of covered investment contracts with less flexibility to more directly tailor their disclosure to provide the information that is more likely to be material to an investment decision than the principles-based disclosure we propose. Additionally, a prescriptive approach may result in disclosure of immaterial information that is not useful to investors in covered investment contract offerings as compared to a principles-based approach.
The proposed startup and fundraising exemptions would allow issuers to offer and sell unrestricted covered investment contracts. Alternatively, we could have proposed that covered investment contracts offered and sold under these exemptions would be restricted securities. One benefit from this alternative would be potentially stronger investor protection: categorizing securities as restricted securities is intended to protect investors from situations where the reseller may be participating in an unregistered distribution on behalf of the issuer and the subsequent investors would not have the protections of a registered offering. Such an alternative, however, could present some significant costs for issuers and investors. First, restrictions on resale would make it more difficult for investors as well as
Proposed Rule 103(b)(4) would require the issuer to disclose, among other things, whether related persons are subject to any transfer or resale restriction(s) with respect to the covered investment contract or subject crypto asset and, if so, to provide a description of the material terms of such restriction(s). Alternatively, we could have proposed, as a condition to an issuer relying on the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption, that the issuer implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that a minimum period (
Such an alternative could benefit potential investors by strengthening investor protection. There are typically two primary concerns associated with sales by insiders. One is in connection with the information asymmetry between an insider and outside investors. In particular, a selling insider is likely to have an informational advantage over outside investors.
We recognize, however, that there are benefits to be realized from permitting insiders, such as company founders and employees, flexibility regarding resales of covered investment contracts. Because most insiders typically consider available exit options before participating in a new venture, not restricting secondary sales increases their incentives to make the original investment, which may promote innovation and business formation.
Thus, the proposed disclosure requirement regarding related person resale or transfer restrictions is intended to address concerns associated with sales by insiders by giving investors the information they need to determine whether there are risks associated with the issuer's related persons and, if so, whether the issuer has taken appropriate steps to mitigate those risks. Instead of requiring a holding period or imposing transfer restrictions, the proposed approach would allow issuers the flexibility to decide whether to adopt any policies and procedures to address the potential risks associated with sales by related persons. This could reduce compliance costs.
Under the proposed Rule 104, the disqualification provisions in Rule 262 would not apply with respect to any conviction, order, judgment, decree, suspension, expulsion, or bar that occurred or was issued before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective, if the rule ultimately is adopted. Rule 104 would require, however, the issuer to include in an offering circular or otherwise furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification under Rule 104 but occurred before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective.
As an alternative, we could have specified that pre-existing events are subject to the disqualification rules. This would strengthen investor protection because it would expand the list of disqualifiable events. At the same time, it would increase the compliance costs for issuers.
As another alternative, we could have narrowed the disqualification provisions. For example, rather than disqualifying an issuer if it or one of the enumerated affiliated persons had been convicted of certain misdemeanors within the preceding 10 years (or five years, with respect to issuers, their predecessors, and affiliated issuers), we could instead limit the lookback period for such conviction to the period during which any resulting penalties apply. This could diminish compliance with costs for issuers but negatively impact investor protection.
Overall, we believe that preserving consistency with the disqualification criteria of Rule 262, as we do in the proposed rules, can potentially yield compliance cost savings for issuers that would rely on the proposed rules while still maintaining appropriate investor protections. Additionally, the proposed requirement that issuers include in an offering circular or otherwise furnish to each purchaser, a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification but occurred before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective would provide important information for investors regarding issuers' prior misconduct.
The proposed startup exemption would be available to issuers for a period of four years. As an alternative, we could have proposed that the exemption be available without any time period attached. Such an alternative could benefit issuers by allowing them more time during which to use covered investment contracts to raise capital and finalize the development of their associated crypto networks and associated crypto applications. Eliminating the time requirement, however, may dissuade investors from participating in an offering because issuers may have less of an incentive to develop their associated crypto networks and applications because they could rely on the exemption for an unlimited amount of time.
As another alternative, we could have included a shorter period (
As another alternative, we could have included a longer period (
The proposed startup exemption would allow issuers to raise up to $5 million for the duration of the four-year period by issuing covered investment contracts without registration under the Securities Act. As an alternative to the proposed offering limit, we could have made the offering limit larger, such as $10 million. This would be commensurate with what is provided for by other exempt offerings geared toward smaller issuers, such as Rule 504 of Regulation D. A larger offering limit could make capital raising under the startup exemption more cost effective and attractive to issuers, resulting in potential favorable effects on capital formation and competition. The increase in the maximum offering size could also make the startup exemption attractive to a broader range of issuers, including larger issuers. This could provide investors with a broader range of investment opportunities in the market for covered investment contracts and potentially result in a more efficient allocation of investor capital. A potential cost of such an alternative may be erosion of investor protection if issuers were allowed to raise significantly more capital without providing additional disclosures like in the proposed fundraising exemption. As mentioned above, the startup exemption would provide issuers with temporary relief from Securities Act registration requirements—during which time they may work towards fulfilling the essential managerial efforts they represented or promised investors they would engage in under the covered investment contract—while, at the same time, ensuring that investors remain sufficiently protected and informed. Issuers seeking to raise larger amounts of capital may avail themselves of the fundraising exemption.
As another alternative, we could have proposed a smaller offering limit, such as $1 million. A potential benefit of such an alternative may be enhancement of investor protection to the extent that issuers would be allowed to raise less capital if they do not provide additional disclosures like in the proposed fundraising exemption. A smaller offering limit could make capital raising under the startup exemption more costly to issuers, resulting in negative effects on capital formation and competition. The lower maximum offering size could also make the startup exemption less attractive to a broader range of issuers, including larger issuers.
As an alternative, we could have proposed the startup exemption without the possibility of raising capital. Such an alternative would be beneficial to issuers because it would allow issuers relying on the exemption to perform the tasks needed to develop, test, and launch their projects with increased certainty about the application of the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act to their projects and with requirements that are tailored to covered investment contracts and their issuers. Issuers that need capital to develop, test, and launch their projects would be able to rely on the proposed fundraising exemption or existing offering exemptions. Additionally, issuers could rely on such an alternative to engage in offerings of covered investment contracts in exchange for, in recognition of, or as incentive for past or future use of an associated crypto network or associated crypto application, or as a reward or incentive for conducting activities primarily related to operating, governing, or securing an associated crypto network or associated crypto application. Such an alternative, however, would generate costs for issuers because it would not allow them to raise, when needed, a modest amount of capital ($5 million) at a lower cost compared to raising the same amount by relying on the proposed fundraising exemption or existing offering exemptions.
Under the proposed fundraising exemption, issuers who have qualified Tier 1 offerings would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. Alternatively, we could have proposed ongoing reporting only for issuers who raise capital via Tier 2 offerings (as in Regulation A). Such an alternative would have decreased compliance costs as well as other costs associated with providing ongoing disclosures for Tier 1 issuers. That would be especially beneficial to smaller issuers, which are more likely to rely on Tier 1 offerings for capital raising. We believe, however, that requiring ongoing and periodic reporting for all issuers under the proposed fundraising exemption is appropriate given that an issuer's ongoing efforts to develop its associated crypto network or associated crypto application are directly relevant to the value of the covered investment contract and the subject crypto asset. Further, and unlike the rationale for excepting Tier 1 issuers under Regulation A from ongoing reporting, we do not anticipate that Tier 1 issuers using the proposed rule will be conducting offerings that are more local in nature than Tier 2 offerings, and we do anticipate that there may be secondary markets for the securities issued in Tier 1 offerings. Lastly, the proposed preemption of State registration and qualification requirements would apply to Tier 1 offerings as well, which supports providing investors with ongoing disclosures. One of the benefits of
Rule 300(a) would permit Tier 2 offerings of up to $75 million in a 12-month period without registration under the Securities Act. Alternatively, we could have set a lower or higher offering limit for Tier 2 offerings. For example, we could have proposed a $50 million offering limit. A lower offering limit of $50 million may offer enhanced investor protection benefits—it would increase the overall amount of securities being offered to the general public that are subject to initial and ongoing disclosure requirements that are more extensive than the requirements for some existing offering exemptions. A potential cost of this alternative would be the inability of some crypto asset issuers to raise enough capital needed for the development of their associated crypto networks or associated crypto applications. We believe a higher offering limit is appropriate with respect to offerings of covered investment contracts. Limiting the fundraising exemption to offerings of covered investment contracts coupled with the other issuer eligibility criteria discussed above sufficiently mitigates investor risks.
Alternatively, we could have proposed a higher offering limit (
The proposed investment contract safe harbor does not impose a time limit on when an issuer must complete or otherwise permanently cease all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised to be eligible for the safe harbor. As an alternative, the Commission could propose a time limit from the date of issuance, such as that used in the proposed startup exemption. A benefit of such a time period is that it could incentivize issuers to complete the essential managerial efforts that they represented or promised they would engage in before the expiration of that period. Such an alternative would also create significant costs for issuers. For example, it could force them to rush to complete their essential managerial efforts to be able to use the safe harbor and achieve separation of the covered investment contract and the subject crypto asset, incurring significant costs in the process. There could also be costs to investors if the deadline creates incentives for issuers to rush their efforts or take on more risk in attempting to complete them.
The proposed investment contract safe harbor would require that the issuer of the covered investment contract has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised it would engage in under the covered investment contract and is not making and does not intend to make any new representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts with respect to the crypto asset. As an alternative, we could have proposed, as a condition in Rule 400(a), a requirement that the subject crypto asset has sufficient functionality and the associated crypto network or associated crypto application has become sufficiently decentralized (according to specified criteria regarding functionality and decentralization) in order for the issuer to rely on the safe harbor. The essential managerial efforts of issuers often are focused on efforts to create a mature crypto asset and application. Accordingly, Form TR could require the issuer to: (1) provide a statement that the crypto asset has achieved the required functionality and that the associated crypto network or associated crypto application has achieved the required decentralization; and (2) provide an analysis demonstrating how such functionality and decentralization was achieved. Such requirements might benefit issuers by providing them with criteria that might be less costly to demonstrate than those in Form TR, while still providing a similar benefit of apprising investors, the Commission, and other members of the public as to the status of a subject crypto asset under the Federal securities laws as well as the basis on which the issuer reached its conclusion. Such an alternative, however, could result in higher costs for issuers of covered investment contracts relative to those under the proposed investment contract safe harbor. Because the disclosure requirements would be different than those in Form TR, issuers availing themselves of the startup exemption or fundraising exemption would incur the additional costs of documenting their satisfaction of these other conditions. In addition, even though it could be relatively less costly for some issuers to document their satisfaction of this alternative as compared to the proposed investment contract safe harbor, it could also be relatively more costly for others without a corresponding increase in relative benefits to issuers or investors. For example, it could be difficult for issuers to determine when a subject crypto asset has sufficient utility or control of the associated blockchain network or when the application is sufficiently dispersed such that it no longer falls within the purview of the Federal securities laws. Issuers may have to incur costs to achieve certainty that they meet the requirements of the safe harbor—for example, they may need to retain the services of legal and technical professionals to verify that they meet the conditions of the safe harbor.
The proposed rules would preempt State securities laws registration and qualification requirements applicable to the initial sales and resales of covered investment contracts under Regulation Crypto Assets, and certain other resales of covered investment contracts. Instead, we could have proposed that the initial sales and resales of covered investment contracts not be exempt from State securities laws registration and qualification requirements. State registration and qualification requirements may offer an additional layer of investor protection provided by the State review process. In addition, merit-based reviews of offerings undertaken by some States may, in some cases, limit participation by investors in certain offerings. Investors in States with merit review may have access to fewer opportunities than their counterparts in other States. This disparity would be evident in offerings of covered investment contracts which generally are not localized offerings. If investors are willing to accept lower returns because of a perceived decrease in investment risk resulting from state review, covered investment contract issuers may face a lower cost of capital. Such an alternative, however, may introduce significant costs for issuers. For example, it could increase the burden of responding to multiple
As another alternative, we could have proposed preemption of State securities laws registration and qualification requirements only for the initial sales or only the resales of covered investment contracts under Regulation Crypto Assets. This alternative could enhance investor protection because, as mentioned above, State registration and qualification requirements, as well as merit-based reviews of offerings undertaken by some States, may offer an additional layer of investor protection provided by their review process. That layer of protection comes with costs in the form of reduced opportunities for investors in States with merit review. It also could have lowered costs for issuers and investors compared to a scenario in which both the initial sales and resales of covered investment contracts are not exempt from State securities laws registration and qualification requirements. Such an alternative, however, would generate costs for issuers and investors compared to a scenario without preemption. As mentioned above, absence of State preemption for initial sales would likely increase covered investment contract issuers' time and compliance costs, thus making it more costly to raise capital via the proposed exemptions. Absence of State preemption for resales could also limit the liquidity of covered investment contracts in the secondary market, making it more difficult for issuers to widely distribute the covered investment contract to investors and users, thus limiting potential valuable network effects.
145. What types of companies (
146. How likely are the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption to attract companies that are considering offerings relying on Regulation D, Regulation A, Regulation Crowdfunding, or other offering exemptions? What would be the costs and benefits from relying on the startup exemption or the fundraising exemption versus existing exemptions? Please provide estimates where possible.
147. What would be the costs and benefits for an issuer of using the startup exemption? Please provide estimates where possible.
148. What would be the costs and benefits for an issuer of using the fundraising exemption? Please provide estimates where possible.
149. What would be the costs and benefits for an issuer of using the investment contract safe harbor? Please provide estimates where possible.
150. Would the proposed disclosure requirements help ensure that investors have a reasonable understanding of the risks and costs of investing in covered investment contracts? If not, what additional requirements would further mitigate the associated risks? How would the costs and benefits compare to other exempt offering methods? Please provide estimates where possible.
151. How would the proposed preemption of State registration and qualification requirements affect the costs and benefits of offerings done under the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption? Please provide estimates where possible, including any information of costs associated with complying with State Blue Sky laws that would be preempted under the proposed rules. Would the proposed preemption affect investor protection and capital formation in the market for covered investment contracts?
152. What is the economic effect of the proposed investment limitations? What types of issuers and investors are most likely to be affected by this restriction? Would this restriction enhance investor protection or undermine it by limiting investor choice?
153. How would investors who purchase covered investment contracts under the proposed rules exit their investment? What is the likelihood that there would be a ready market for covered investment contracts issued in reliance on the proposed rules? What entities or investors are likely to supply the liquidity, and what discounts, if any, are investors likely to face when exiting their investments?
154. The Commission is interested in receiving comments, views, estimates and data concerning the following:
a. Expected size of the market for covered investment contracts (
b. Overall economic impact of the proposed rules; and
c. Any other aspect of the economic analysis.
d. What would be the economic impact of the policy alternatives discussed in the proposed rules?
Certain provisions of the proposed rules contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the PRA.
• “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” (a proposed new collection of information);
• “Form 1-CRYPTO” (a proposed new collection of information);
• “Form 1-KC” (a proposed new collection of information);
• “Form 1-SC” (a proposed new collection of information);
• “Form 1-UC” (a proposed new collection of information);
• “Form TR” (a proposed new collection of information); and
• “Form ID” (OMB Control Number 3235-0328).
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. We are applying for OMB control numbers for the proposed new collections of information in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13, and OMB has not yet assigned a control number to each new collection. Responses to these collections of information would be mandatory.
The number, type, and size of the issuers that would conduct offerings of covered investment contracts under Regulation Crypto Assets is uncertain, but data regarding current market
We estimate that 99 of the total 130 offerings estimated to be conducted annually under Regulation Crypto Assets would be conducted under the startup exemption (by 99 different issuers). We base this estimate on the 99 offerings involving crypto assets in the Regulation D and Regulation Crowdfunding markets that raised $5 million or less in 2024. We assume that each issuer would conduct one offering per year under the startup exemption. The burdens associated with the startup exemption would be reflected in the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection. Burdens associated with the startup exemption also would be reflected in the “Form TR” information collection.
We estimate that 31 of the total 130 offerings estimated to be conducted annually under Regulation Crypto Assets would be conducted under the fundraising exemption (by 31 different issuers). We base this estimate on the 31 offerings involving crypto assets in the Regulation D, Regulation A, and Regulation Crowdfunding markets that raised more than $5 million but no more than $75 million in 2024. We assume that each issuer would conduct one offering per year under the fundraising exemption.
The burdens associated with the fundraising exemption would be reflected in the “Form 1-CRYPTO,” “Form 1-KC,” “Form 1-SC,” and “Form 1-UC,” information collections. Burdens associated with the fundraising exemption also would be reflected in the “Form TR” information collection.
We also estimate that 475 issuers would rely on the investment contract safe harbor annually.
Below we estimate the incremental and aggregate increase in paperwork burden as a result of the proposed rules. These estimates represent the average burden for all respondents, both large and small. In deriving our estimates, we recognize that the burdens will likely vary among individual respondents and from year to year based on a number of factors, including the nature of their business.
As noted in section V.B.1 above, issuers' burdens associated with the startup exemption would be reflected in two different information collections: “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” and “Form TR.” This section discusses the burden estimates for the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection. The burden estimates for the “Form TR” information collection are discussed in section V.C.3 below.
The “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection would reflect burdens associated with proposed Rules 104(b), 200(c), and 200(d). We discuss our burden estimates for each of those rules below. Based on the sum of the burden estimates for each of those rules as well as the 99 estimated number of annual responses, we estimate a total annual burden of 3,960 hours and $1,005,840 for the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection.
Rule 104(b) would require an issuer to include in an offering circular or otherwise furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification under Rule 104 but occurred before the date on which Rule 104 becomes effective.
For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that Rule 104(b) would require each issuer relying on the startup exemption to expend 1.5 internal burden hours and require 0.5 hours of outside professional services (at a rate of $635 per hour
Based on the 99 estimated number of annual responses to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection, we estimate a total annual burden of 148.5 hours (1.5 internal burden hours per response × 99 responses annually) and $31,432.50 (0.5 hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 99 responses annually) associated with Rule 104(b), which would be attributed to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens associated with Rule 104(b) attributable to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” collection of information.
Rule 200(c) would require the issuer to file (and, in certain circumstances, amend a previously filed) Form NOR with the Commission in order to rely on the startup exemption.
The information that would be required to be included in a Form NOR is relatively limited, with even fewer disclosure requirements than Form D. Further, the circumstances under which an issuer would be required to amend a Form NOR generally are consistent with the amendment obligations with respect to a Form D. We believe it is appropriate, therefore, to assume that the burden associated with Rule 200(c) will be the same as the burden associated with Form D, which we estimate to be a total of four hours per response annually.
Based on the 99 estimated number of annual responses to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection, we estimate a total annual burden of 99 hours (one internal burden hour per response × 99 responses annually) and $188,595 (three hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 99 responses annually) associated with Rule 200(c), which would be attributed to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens associated with Rule 200(c) attributable to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” collection of information.
Rule 200(d) would require an issuer relying on the startup exemption to make the information described in Rule 103 publicly accessible, free of charge, at the website address specified in the notice of reliance at or prior to the time that the notice of reliance is filed with the Commission in accordance with Rule 200(c)(1).
Because of the principles-based nature of the disclosure requirements set forth in proposed Rule 103, the burdens associated with Rule 200(d) may differ significantly from one issuer to another. Depending on their particular facts and circumstances, some issuers may be required to make extensive disclosures, while other issuers may be required to make relatively limited disclosures.
In order to derive the estimate for Rule 200(d), we note that, in adopting Regulation Crowdfunding, the Commission “estimate[d] that the average total burden to prepare and file the Form C, including any amendment to disclose any material change, will be approximately 100 hours.”
We recognize that there are several differences between the proposed disclosure requirements under Rule 200(d) (the substance of which would be set forth in Rule 103) and the information required to be provided by Form C and Form 1-A. Among other things, the proposed disclosure requirements are intended to elicit information that is unique to covered investment contracts and crypto assets. The proposed disclosure requirements also do not require a discussion of an issuer's financial condition or any financial statements or information, which could comprise a significant portion of the burden estimates for Form C and Form 1-A. Further, Rule 200(d) requires that the information be made publicly accessible and free of charge on a website of the issuer's choosing rather than filed on EDGAR. These differences suggest that an issuer may incur relatively lower burdens under Rule 200(d) than it would in connection with filing a Form C or Form 1-A.
In light of these differences between the requirements of Rule 200(d) and Forms C and 1-A, we estimate that Rule 200(d) would require each issuer relying on the startup exemption to expend 50 total burden hours in order to comply with the rule (
Based on the 99 estimated number of annual responses to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection, we estimate a total annual burden of 3,712.5 hours (37.5 internal burden hours per response × 99 responses annually) and $785,812.50 (12.5 hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 99 responses annually) associated with Rule 200(d), which would be attributed to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection. The below table summarizes the paperwork burdens associated with Rule 200(d) attributed to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” collection of information.
The below table summarizes the total estimated paperwork burdens of the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection attributed to Rules 104(b), 200(c), and 200(d).
As noted in section V.B.2 above, issuers' burdens associated with the fundraising exemption would be reflected in five different information collections: “Form 1-CRYPTO,” “Form 1-KC,” “Form 1-SC,” “Form 1-UC,” and “Form TR.” This section discusses the burden estimates for all those information collections except for Form TR, which is discussed in section V.C.3 below.
As discussed in section II.C.2.a.i above, the fundraising exemption is modeled on Regulation A. Similarly, each of the forms that an issuer is required to file under the fundraising exemption is modeled on the corresponding form that is required to be filed under Regulation A. Nonetheless, there are several differences between the fundraising exemption, Regulation A, and the two sets of forms. For example, as with the startup exemption, the vast majority of the non-financial information requirements under the fundraising exemption (
In addition, the Part I information requirements under Form 1-CRYPTO and Form 1-KC are more streamlined and simplified than the Part I information requirements under Form 1-A and Form 1-K. Further, although the proposed financial statements requirements are substantially similar to the corresponding requirements under Form 1-A, the discussion of financial condition required under Forms 1-CRYPTO, 1-KC, and 1-SC is based on the corresponding requirement in Regulation Crowdfunding rather than the discussion of financial condition required under Regulation A. These differences may suggest that an issuer may incur relatively lower burdens
Notwithstanding these differences, it is difficult to determine with certainty whether an issuer's burdens would be significantly lower under the fundraising exemption than under Regulation A. We do not expect the burdens would be higher than under Regulation A. Accordingly, we estimate that the fundraising exemption would require the same burdens as Regulation A. Thus, for each of the proposed forms that an issuer would be required to file under the proposed fundraising exemption, our burden estimate is the same as our current burden estimate for the corresponding form required to be filed under Regulation A. We discuss each form in turn below.
Offering statements filed under Regulation Crypto Assets would use new Form 1-CRYPTO. Consistent with the current burden estimate for Form 1-A, we estimate that Form 1-CRYPTO would require approximately 717.372 annual burden hours per filing.
Based on the 31 estimated number of offerings annually under the fundraising exemption, we estimate a total annual burden of 16,678.899 hours (538.029 internal burden hours per response × 31 responses annually) and $3,530,366.955 (179.343 hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 31 responses annually) associated with the “Form 1-CRYPTO” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens attributable to the “Form 1-CRYPTO” information collection.
Form 1-KC would be used for annual reports under Rule 305(a)(1) of Regulation Crypto Assets. Consistent with the current burden estimate for Form 1-K, we estimate that Form 1-KC would require approximately 600 annual burden hours per filing. We further estimate that 75 percent of those 600 total burden hours (450 hours) will be performed internally by the issuer and 25 percent of those 600 total burden hours (150 hours) will be performed externally by outside professionals (at a rate of $635 per hour).
Based on the 31 estimated number of offerings annually under the fundraising exemption,
The below table summarizes paperwork burdens attributable to the “Form 1-KC” information collection.
Form 1-SC would be used for semiannual reports under Rule 305(a)(3) of Regulation Crypto Assets. Consistent with the current burden estimate for Form 1-SA, we estimate that Form 1-SC would require approximately 188.04 annual burden hours per filing. We further estimate that 85 percent of those 188.04 total burden hours (159.834 hours) will be performed internally by the issuer and 15 percent of those 188.04 total burden hours (28.206 hours) will be performed externally by
Based on the 31 estimated number of offerings annually under the fundraising exemption,
The below table summarizes the paperwork burdens attributable to the “Form 1-SC” information collection.
Form 1-UC would be used for current reports under Rule 305(a)(4) of Regulation Crypto Assets. Consistent with the current burden estimate for Form 1-U, we estimate that Form 1-UC would require approximately five annual burden hours per filing. We further estimate that 85 percent of those five total burden hours (4.25 hours) will be performed internally by the issuer and 15 percent of those five total burden hours (0.75 hours) will be performed externally by outside professionals (at a rate of $635 per hour).
Based on the estimated 31 offerings annually under the fundraising exemption,
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens attributable to the “Form 1-UC” information collection.
As noted in section V.B above, an issuer may file a transition report on Form TR pursuant to the startup exemption (under proposed Rule 200(e)), the fundraising exemption (under proposed Rule 305(c) and (d)), or the investment contract safe harbor (under Rule 400(b)).
The “Form TR” information collection would reflect burdens associated with proposed Rules 200(e), 305(c) and (d), and 400(b). We discuss our burden estimates for each of those rules below. Based on the sum of the burden estimates for each of those rules as well as the estimated number of annual responses, we estimate a total annual burden of 11,179.65 hours and $2,365,375 for the “Form TR” information collection.
Rule 200(e) would require an issuer relying on the startup exemption to file a transition report containing the information required by Form TR no later than four years after the date on which the issuer filed a notice of reliance in accordance with Rule 200(c)(1).
Because the Form TR disclosure requirements would differ depending on whether an issuer has satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a), the burdens associated with Rule 200(e) also would differ from one issuer to another. Depending on their particular facts and circumstances, some issuers may be required to make extensive disclosures, while other issuers may be required to make relatively limited disclosures (
We assume that 25 percent of the issuers relying on the startup exemption would make a Form TR filing pursuant to Rule 200(e) each year. As such, based on the estimated 99 annual responses to the “Rule 200 of Regulation Crypto Assets (Form NOR)” information collection, we assume there would be 24.75 Form TR filings pursuant to Rule 200(e). Further, we estimate a total annual burden of 371.25 hours (15 internal burden hours per response × 24.75 responses annually) and $78,581.25 (five hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 24.75 responses annually) associated with Rule 200(e), which would be attributed to the “Form TR” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens associated with Rule 200(e) for issuers relying on the startup exemption.
Rule 305(c) and (d) would set forth transition reporting provisions that would apply equally to issuers in Tier 1 and Tier 2 offerings and set forth pathways to suspend or terminate ongoing reporting obligations under the fundraising exemption.
Under Rule 305(c)(1), the duty to file reports under Rule 305(a) with respect to a class of securities held of record (as defined in 17 CFR 240.12g5-1) by less than 300 persons would be suspended for such class of securities immediately upon filing with the Commission a transition report on Form TR if the issuer of such class has filed all reports required to be filed under Rule 305 before the date of such Form TR filing for the shorter of: (i) the period since the issuer became subject to such reporting obligation; or (ii) its most recent three fiscal years and the portion of the current year preceding the date of filing Form TR. This proposed rule substantially mirrors Rule 257(d) of Regulation A.
The information that an issuer seeking to suspend its duty to report under Rule 305(c) would be required to provide under Form TR is substantially identical to the information required by Form 1-Z for an issuer seeking to suspend its duty to report under Rule 257(d). Thus, consistent with the current burden estimate for Form 1-Z, we estimate that a Form TR filed pursuant to Rule 305(c) would require approximately 1.5 annual burden hours per filing. We further estimate that 100 percent of those 1.5 total burden hours will be performed internally by the issuer. We assume that ten percent of the issuers relying on the fundraising exemption would make a Form TR filing pursuant to Rule 305(c) each year. As such, based on the estimated 31 issuers relying on the fundraising exemption annually, we assume there would be 3.1 Form TR filings pursuant to Rule 305(c) and a total annual burden of 4.65 hours (1.5 burden hours per response × 3.1 responses annually) associated with Rule 305(c), which would be attributed to the “Form TR” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens attributable to Rule 305(c) for issuers relying on the fundraising exemption.
Under Rule 305(d)(2), if an issuer satisfies the condition in Rule 400(a) (
Form TR's information requirements for an issuer filing under Rule 305(d) are the same as those for an issuer filing under Rule 200(e). Thus, consistent with the burden estimates for Rule 200(e), we assume that each issuer filing a Form TR pursuant to Rule 305(d) would incur 20 total burden hours, with 75 percent of those 20 total burden hours (15 hours) being performed internally by the issuer and 25 percent of those 20 total burden hours (5 hours) being performed externally by outside professionals (at a rate of $635 per hour).
As noted in section V.B.2 above, we estimate that issuers would conduct 31 offerings annually under the fundraising exemption. For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that 25 percent of those issuers would terminate their duty to report under Rule 305(d) annually. Thus, we estimate a total of 7.75 Form TR filings pursuant to Rule 305(d) annually, with an annual burden of 116.25 hours (15 internal burden hours per response × 7.75 responses annually) and an annual cost burden of $24,606.25 (five hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 7.75 responses annually), each of which would be attributed to the “Form TR” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens attributable to Rule 305(d) for issuers relying on the fundraising exemption.
Rule 400 would provide that a covered investment contract will be deemed to have ceased to exist, and the crypto asset that was subject to the covered investment contract will be deemed not to constitute or represent or to be subject to that investment contract for purposes of section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act, if the conditions set forth in Rule 400(a) and (b) are satisfied. Rule 400(a) would require that the issuer of the covered investment contract has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised it would engage in under the covered investment contract and is not making and does not intend to make any new representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts with respect to the crypto asset. Rule 400(b) would require the issuer of the covered investment contract to file a transition report on Form TR. Form TR, in turn, would require the issuer to disclose certain fundamental information (
As noted in sections V.C.3.a and b above, we estimate that issuers filing a Form TR pursuant to Rule 200(e) or Rule 305(d) would incur 20 total burden hours per filing. The burden hours for those filings, however, may be more variable than the burden hours for an issuer filing a Form TR pursuant to Rule 400(b) because the Form TR disclosure requirements for an issuer filing pursuant to Rule 200(e) or 305(d) would differ depending on whether the issuer has satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a). By contrast, because all issuers filing a Form TR pursuant to Rule 400(b) must have satisfied the condition in Rule 400(a) in order to fit within the investment contract safe harbor, we
We assume that each of the 475 issuers that we estimate would rely on the investment contract safe harbor annually would file a Form TR pursuant to Rule 400(b). Thus, we estimate a total of 475 Form TR filings pursuant to Rule 400(b) annually, with an annual burden of 10,687.5 hours (22.5 internal burden hours per response × 475 responses annually) and an annual cost burden of $2,262,187.50 (7.5 hours of outside professional services per response × $635 per hour × 475 responses annually), each of which would be attributed to the “Form TR” information collection.
The below table summarizes the estimated paperwork burdens associated with Rule 400(b).
The below table summarizes the total estimated paperwork burdens of the “Form TR” information collection attributable to Rules 200(e), 305(c), 305(d), and 400(b).
Under the proposed rules, an issuer would be required to file specified disclosures with us on EDGAR. We anticipate that many issuers relying on Regulation Crypto Assets for the first time would not previously have filed an electronic submission with us and, therefore, would need to complete and submit Form ID, the application for access to file on EDGAR. The proposed rules would not change the form itself, but we anticipate that the number of Form ID filings would increase due to new issuers seeking to rely on Regulation Crypto Assets.
For purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that all the issuers that would seek to offer and sell securities in reliance on the startup exemption (99 issuers) and the fundraising exemption (31 issuers) would not have filed an electronic submission with us previously and, therefore, would be required to file a Form ID.
Additionally, for purposes of this PRA analysis, we assume that each issuer filing a Form ID would incur 0.6 total burden hours, with 100 percent of those hours being handled internally by the issuer. The below table summarizes the estimated incremental paperwork burdens associated with Form ID.
The table below illustrates the estimated annual compliance burden of new information collections as a result of the proposed rules' estimated effect on the paperwork burden per response.
The table below illustrates
The collections of information required under Regulation Crypto Assets would be mandatory for all issuers.
The collections of information required under Regulation Crypto Assets would not be confidential, although issuers may request confidential treatment for certain information filed or materials submitted in conjunction with the filings.
Issuers would not be subject to recordkeeping requirements under Regulation Crypto Assets.
We invite comment on all of the above estimates. In particular, we request comment on the assumptions and estimates described above with respect to how issuers would comply with the proposed information collection requests. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), we request comment in order to: (1) evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the proposed collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (5) evaluate whether the proposed rules would have any effects on any other collections of information not previously identified in this section.
Any member of the public may direct to us any comments about the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing these burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to the OMB Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
In addition to discussing the benefits, costs, and reasonable alternatives in the economic analysis in section IV, consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, and estimating burdens under the PRA in section V, the Commission reports estimated total monetized benefits and costs for all affected entities in two ways specified in OMB Circular A-4.
We report below (1) the present values of expected benefits and costs that are monetized in our economic analysis over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026, as well as (2) the annualized values over the same time horizon that are derived from the present values. This 10-year time horizon represents the period over which the principal benefits and costs that are monetized in the economic analysis are expected to accrue.
Table 8 reports the present values of monetized benefits and costs using annual real discount rates of three percent and seven percent over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026.
Table 9 reports annualized monetized benefits and costs using real discount rates of three percent and seven percent over a 10-year horizon.
In sum, Tables 8 and 9 report in two alternative ways expected total benefits and costs, across all affected entities, which are monetized in our economic analysis, using real discount rates of three percent and seven percent over a 10-year time horizon.
For purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act),
To help inform OMB's determination as to whether any final rule that results from the proposal would be a “major rule,” we solicit comment and data on: (1) the potential effect of the proposed rules on the U.S. economy on an annual basis; (2) any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and (3) any potential adverse effect on competition, investment, or innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views, to the extent possible, to inform OMB's determination regarding whether any final rule following this proposal is likely to be a “major rule” for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
The proposed rules are intended to create a tailored offering regime for covered investment contracts to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation within the crypto asset markets while ensuring that investors are adequately protected and provided with the information they need to make informed investment decisions. The proposed rules would be set forth in a new regulation titled “Regulation Crypto Assets” and would include two exemptions from the registration requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act:
• The startup exemption, which would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period; and
• The fundraising exemption, which would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period.
Under both exemptions, issuers would be required to make certain principles-based narrative disclosures available to their investors. In addition, issuers using the fundraising exemption would be required to provide financial statements and be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. The proposed rules also would include a conditional safe harbor from the term “investment contract” in the definitions of “security” in the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. If the conditions of that proposed safe harbor are satisfied, a crypto asset would be deemed not to be subject to an investment contract for purposes of those definitions of “security.” The reasons for, and objectives of, the proposed rules are discussed in more detail in section II above.
The rules contained in this release are being proposed under the authority set forth in the Securities Act, particularly sections 3(b), 18, 19(a), and 28 thereof, and the Exchange Act, particularly
The proposed rules would affect some issuers that are small entities. The RFA defines “small entity” to mean “small business,” “small organization,” or “small governmental jurisdiction.”
It is difficult to predict the number of small businesses that would use proposed Regulation Crypto Assets that would qualify as a “small entity” due to the lack of reliable data or information that would allow us to estimate the number of issuers that would be able to rely on the proposed rules or that are likely to use them in the future. Nevertheless, we believe that the proposed rules will be used by many issuers that are considered small entities because the proposed rules would create an offering and disclosure framework specifically tailored to covered investment contracts, which would allow issuers to avoid undue costs. Particularly, the startup exemption, through its offering limit and tailored disclosure requirements, is designed to allow small entities in early stages of development that may not find it practical to do a traditional public offering to raise capital at a lower cost compared to some of the existing exemptions. Moreover, because the startup exemption would be available to entities, individuals, or a group of individuals or entities, it would be especially useful for smaller or early-stage issuers that may not have formed a legal entity.
As discussed above, we analyzed data available on the potential number of issuers that made crypto asset-related offerings under Regulation D, Regulation A, or Regulation Crowdfunding.
If adopted, the proposed rules would require the filing of new forms along with tailored disclosures (and, for one of the new forms, the use of XML), which would add to the compliance costs for issuers under the new offering regime for covered investment contracts. In addition, compliance with the proposed rules may require the use of professional skills, such as lawyers, accountants and auditors, financial managers, and information technology managers.
The proposed rules would apply to small entities to the same extent as other entities, irrespective of size. We expect that the nature of any benefits and costs associated with the proposed rules to be generally similar for large and small entities. We also anticipate that the economic benefits and costs of the proposed rules likely could vary widely among all entities, including small entities, primarily based on whether they conduct offerings of covered investment contracts and how frequently they do so.
As noted in section IV.A.1 above, we acknowledge that the proposed rules' compliance costs may be proportionally higher for smaller issuers than for larger issuers. We are unable to quantify or estimate with any degree of certainty the costs that a particular issuer may incur under the proposed rules. As noted in section V.C above, however, the estimated burdens associated with the proposed rules represent the average burden for all issuers, both large and small, and we recognize that those burdens likely will vary among individual issuers and from year to year based on a number of factors, including the nature of their business.
We do not believe the proposed rules would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other existing Federal rules.
The RFA directs us to consider alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. In connection with the proposed rules, we considered the following alternatives:
• Establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;
• Clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for small entities;
• Using performance rather than design standards; and
• Exempting small entities from all or part of the requirements.
The proposed rules are intended to create a tailored offering regime for covered investment contracts to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation within the crypto asset markets while ensuring that investors are adequately protected and provided with the information they need to make informed investment decisions. The disclosure, some of which would be provided in a machine-readable format, should permit investors to more quickly and efficiently evaluate information relating to offerings of covered investment contracts, on a more timely basis.
While we acknowledge that small entities are more likely to be affected by the costs of additional disclosure, we note that smaller entities may benefit significantly from the Commission's proposed exemptions because they would provide those entities with greater access to capital.
Moreover, because small entities are more likely to have relatively high information asymmetries, we believe that investors in small entities will have a particular need for the information required by the proposed rules in a timely manner, and we have determined small entities should not be exempt from all or part of these requirements or be permitted delayed compliance. We note, however, that various aspects of the proposed rules are intended to minimize issuers' compliance costs. For example, we have proposed principles-based disclosure requirements in Rule 103, applicable to both the startup exemption and the fundraising exemption, which may reduce compliance costs relative to a more prescriptive disclosure requirement. In addition, proposed Rule 200(d)(1) would require the issuer to make the
We have used design rather than performance standards in connection with the proposed rules because we are seeking specific information relating to an issuer's offering of covered investment contracts with the goal of enabling investors to better analyze those offerings. Thus, the objectives of the proposed rules are unlikely to be met using a performance standard.
We encourage the submission of comments with respect to any aspect of this IRFA. In particular, we request comments regarding:
• The number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules;
• The existence or nature of the potential impact of the proposed rules on small entities discussed in the analysis;
• How the proposed rules could further lower the burden on small entities; and
• How to quantify the impact of the proposed rules.
Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. Comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, if the proposed rules are adopted, and will be placed in the same public file as comments on the proposed rules themselves.
The rules and forms contained in this document are being proposed under the authority set forth in the Securities Act, particularly, sections 3(b), 18, 19(a), and 28 thereof, 15 U.S.C. 77a
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electronic filing, Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission is proposing to amend Title 17, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, and 557; 11 U.S.C. 901 and 1109(a); 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77
(n) With respect to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
(1) To authorize the granting of applications under § 228.104 of this chapter upon a showing of good cause that it is not necessary under the circumstances that an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets be denied;
(2) To determine the date and time of qualification for offering statements and amendments to offering statements pursuant to § 228.302(e) of this chapter;
(3) To consent to the withdrawal of an offering statement or to declare an offering statement abandoned pursuant to § 228.307 of this chapter; and
(4) To deny a transition report filing pursuant to § 228.307 of this chapter.
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77h-1, 77j, 77s, 77u, 77sss, 78c(b), 78d-1, 78d-2, 78
(e) * * *
(3) To determine the effectiveness of a registration statement, or a post-effective amendment thereto, or the qualification of an offering statement, or a post-qualification amendment hereto, as authorized by 17 CFR 200.30-1(a)(1), 200.30-1(a)(5), 200.30-1(b)(2), 200.30-1(f)(1), 200.30-1(f)(6), and 200.30-1(n)(2), or 17 CFR 200.30-5(b), 200.30-5(c)(3), 200.30-5(c)(4), and 200.30-5(c)(6).
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77r(b)(3), 77s, 77z-3, 78c(b), 78w, and 78mm.
As used in this Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR Part 228) and in Form 1-CRYPTO, Form 1-KC, Form 1-SC, Form 1-UC, Form TR, and Form NOR (§§ 239.600 through 605 of this chapter), all terms have the same meanings as in Rule 405 (§ 230.405 of this chapter), except that all references to
(1) Any public or private offering, including a distribution, of a covered investment contract in one or a series of capital raising transactions; or
(2) Any public or private offering, including a distribution and transactions referred to as “airdrops,” of a covered investment contract in one or a series of transactions in exchange for, in recognition of, as or incentive for past or future use of an associated crypto network or associated crypto application, or as a reward or incentive for conducting activities primarily related to operating, governing, or securing an associated crypto network or associated crypto application.
(1) If the issuer is not relying on Rule 302(b) ((§ 228.302(b)), the more recent of:
(i) The current offering circular contained in a qualified offering statement; and
(ii) Any offering circular filed pursuant to Rule 302(f) (§ 228.302(f)).
(2) If the issuer is relying on Rule 302(b) ((§ 228.302(b)), the more recent of:
(i) The offering circular filed pursuant to Rule 302(f)(1) or (3) (§ 228.302(f)(1) or (3)); and
(ii) Any subsequent offering circular filed pursuant to Rule 302(f) (§ 228.302(f)).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) A failure to comply with a term, condition, or requirement of this Regulation Crypto Assets will not result in the loss of any exemption under this Regulation Crypto Assets from the requirements of section 5 of the Securities Act for any offer or sale to a particular individual or entity, if the person relying on the exemption establishes that:
(i) The failure to comply did not pertain to a term, condition, or requirement directly intended to protect that particular individual or entity;
(ii) The failure to comply was insignificant with respect to the offering as a whole; and
(iii) A good faith and reasonable attempt was made to comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and requirements of this Regulation Crypto Assets.
(2) A transaction made in reliance upon an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets must comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulation. Where an exemption is established only through reliance upon paragraph (1) of this section, the failure to comply is nonetheless actionable by the Commission under section 20 of the Securities Act.
(3) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section will not preclude the Commission from bringing an enforcement action seeking any appropriate relief or a proceeding under § 228.306 for an issuer's failure to comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and requirements of this Regulation Crypto Assets.
(e)
(1) For purposes of determining the number of units of covered investment contracts as required by any rule or form in Regulation Crypto Assets, one unit of a covered investment contract is equivalent to one unit of the subject crypto asset.
(2) For purposes of determining the price per unit of a covered investment contract as required by any rule or form in Regulation Crypto Assets, such price should be determined by reference to the price per unit of the subject crypto asset.
For example, if an issuer sells a covered investment contract to
The Commission periodically, but not less than once every five years, must adjust the offering amount limitations in § 228.200 and subpart C of this Regulation Crypto Assets to reflect any changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) The number of units of covered investment contracts to be offered, the purchase price per unit (or how the purchase price per unit will be determined), the duration of the offering period, and any qualifications for or restrictions on purchasers in the offering;
(ii) Any material agreements in furtherance of the distribution of covered investment contracts in the offering;
(iii) The estimated net offering sale proceeds and expenses to be paid with the offering proceeds;
(iv) The intended use of proceeds from any sales in the offering; and
(v) The website address at which any whitepapers or other offering materials that the issuer prepared and distributed, either publicly or to prospective purchasers in connection with the offering, are publicly accessible, free of charge.
(3)
(4)
(i) The material aspects of the issuer's management and related persons;
(ii) The material aspects of any conflicts of interest or related person transactions involving the issuer; and
(iii) Whether related persons are subject to any transfer or resale restriction(s) with respect to the covered investment contract or subject crypto asset and, if so, the material terms of such restriction(s).
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) Four years after the date of such filing; and
(ii) The date on which the issuer files a transition report pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
(1) The issuer must file with the Commission a notice of reliance containing the information required by Form NOR (§ 239.605) prior to the commencement of any covered transaction.
(2) The issuer may file an amendment to a previously filed notice of reliance on Form NOR at any time.
(3) During the period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the issuer must file an amendment to a previously filed notice of reliance on Form NOR:
(i) To correct a material mistake of fact or error in the previously filed notice of reliance, as soon as practicable after discovery of the mistake or error; or
(ii) To reflect a material change in the information provided in the previously filed notice of reliance, as soon as practicable after the change.
(d)
(1) The issuer must make the information described in § 228.103 publicly accessible, free of charge, at the website address specified in the notice of reliance at or prior to the time that the notice of reliance is filed with the Commission in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) The issuer must ensure that the information disclosed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section remains publicly accessible, free of charge, at the website address specified in the notice of reliance for the duration of the period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) During the period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the issuer must amend the information disclosed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar year if, as of the end of the calendar year, there are any material changes in the information previously disclosed.
(e)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) The issuer's first offering under this section; or
(ii) Any subsequent offering under this section that is qualified within one year of the qualification date of the issuer's first offering.
(b)
(1) Is an entity organized under, and subject to, the laws of the United States, or any State or territory of the United States or the District of Columbia;
(2) Is not a development stage company that either has no specific business plan or purpose, or has indicated that its business plan is to merge with or acquire an unidentified company or companies;
(3) Is not an investment company registered or required to be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
(4) Is not, and has not been, subject to any order of the Commission entered pursuant to section 12(j) (15 U.S.C. 78l(j)) of the Exchange Act within five years before the filing of the offering statement;
(5) Has filed with the Commission all reports required to be filed, if any, pursuant to § 228.305 or pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 15 U.S.C. 78o) during the two years before the filing of the offering statement (or for such shorter period that the issuer was required to file such reports); and
(6) Has satisfied the applicable requirements set forth in subpart A of this Regulation Crypto Assets.
(c)
(1)
(i) Except as allowed by § 228.304, no offer of securities may be made unless an offering statement has been filed with the Commission.
(ii) After the offering statement has been filed, but before it is qualified:
(A) Oral offers may be made;
(B) Written offers pursuant to § 228.303 may be made; and
(C) Solicitations of interest and other communications pursuant to § 228.304 may be made.
(iii) Offers may be made after the offering statement has been qualified, but any written offers must be accompanied with or preceded by the most recent offering circular filed with the Commission for such offering.
(2)
(i) No sale of securities may be made:
(A) Until the offering statement has been qualified;
(B) By issuers that are not currently subject to the reporting requirements of § 228.305(a), until a Preliminary Offering Circular is delivered at least 48 hours before the sale to any person that before qualification of the offering statement had indicated an interest in purchasing securities in the offering, including those persons that responded to an issuer's solicitation of interest materials; and
(C) Unless the purchaser is either an accredited investor (as defined in § 230.501 of this chapter) or the aggregate purchase price to be paid by the purchaser for the securities is no more than 10 percent of the greater of that purchaser's:
(1) Annual income or net worth if a natural person (with annual income and net worth for such natural person purchaser determined as provided in § 230.501 of this chapter); or
(2) Revenue or net assets for such purchaser's most recently completed fiscal year end if a non-natural person.
(D) The issuer may rely on a representation of the purchaser when determining compliance with the 10 percent investment limitation in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C), provided that the issuer does not know at the time of sale that any such representation is untrue.
(ii) In a transaction that represents a sale by the issuer or an underwriter, or a sale by a dealer within 90 calendar days after qualification of the offering statement, each underwriter or dealer selling in such transaction must deliver to each purchaser from it, not later than two business days following the completion of such sale, a copy of the Final Offering Circular, subject to the following provisions:
(A) If the sale was by the issuer and was not effected by or through an underwriter or dealer, the issuer is responsible for delivering the Final Offering Circular as if the issuer were an underwriter;
(B) For continuous or delayed offerings under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the 90-calendar day period for dealers shall commence on the day of the first bona fide offering of securities under such offering statement;
(C) If the security is listed on a registered national securities exchange, no offering circular need be delivered by a dealer more than 25 calendar days after the later of the qualification date of the offering statement or the first date on which the security was bona fide offered to the public;
(D) No offering circular need be delivered by a dealer if the issuer is subject, immediately prior to the time of the filing of the offering statement, to the reporting requirements of § 228.305(a); and
(E) The Final Offering Circular delivery requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section may be satisfied by delivering a notice to the effect that the sale was made pursuant to a qualified offering statement that includes the uniform resource locator (“URL”), which, in the case of an electronic-only offering, must be an active hyperlink, where the Final Offering Circular, or the offering statement of which such Final Offering Circular is part, may be obtained on EDGAR and contact information sufficient to notify a purchaser where a request for a Final Offering Circular can be sent and received in response.
(3)
(i) Continuous or delayed offerings may be made under this Regulation Crypto Assets, so long as the offering statement pertains only to:
(A) Securities that are to be offered or sold solely by or on behalf of a person or persons other than the issuer, a subsidiary of the issuer, or a person of which the issuer is a subsidiary;
(B) Securities that are to be offered and sold pursuant to an employee benefit plan of the issuer;
(C) Securities that are to be issued upon the exercise of outstanding options, warrants, or rights;
(D) Securities that are to be issued upon conversion of other outstanding securities;
(E) Securities that are pledged as collateral; or
(F) Securities the offering of which will be commenced within two business days after the qualification date, will be made on a continuous basis, may continue for a period in excess of 30 calendar days from the date of initial qualification, and will be offered in an amount that, at the time the offering statement is qualified, is reasonably expected to be offered and sold within two years from the initial qualification date. These securities may be offered and sold only if not more than three years have elapsed since the initial qualification date of the offering statement under which they are being offered and sold; provided, however, that if a new offering statement has been filed pursuant to this paragraph (c)(3)(i)(F), securities covered by the prior offering statement may continue to be offered and sold until the earlier of the qualification date of the new offering statement or 180 calendar days after the third anniversary of the initial qualification date of the prior offering statement. Before the end of such three-year period, an issuer may file a new offering statement covering the securities. The new offering statement must include all the information that would be required at that time in an offering statement relating to all offerings that it covers. Before the qualification date of the new offering statement, the issuer may include as part of such new offering statement any
(ii) At the market offerings, by or on behalf of the issuer or otherwise, are not permitted under this exemption. As used in this paragraph (c)(3)(ii), the term at the market offering means an offering of securities at other than a fixed price.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The initial non-public submission; and
(2) All non-public amendments.
(e)
(f)
(1) General rules for amendments:
(i) Amendments to an offering statement must be signed and filed with the Commission in the same manner as the initial filing. Amendments to an offering statement must be filed under cover of Form 1-CRYPTO and must be numbered consecutively in the order in which filed.
(ii) Every amendment that includes amended audited financial statements must include the consent of the certifying accountant to the use of such accountant's certification in connection with the amended financial statements in the offering statement or offering circular and to being named as having audited such financial statements.
(iii) Amendments solely relating to Part III of Form 1-CRYPTO must comply with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, except that such amendments may be limited to Part I of Form 1-CRYPTO, an explanatory note, and all the information required by Part III of Form 1-CRYPTO.
(2) Post-qualification amendments must be filed in the following circumstances for ongoing offerings:
(i) At least every 12 months after the qualification date to include the financial statements that would be required by Form 1-CRYPTO as of such date; or
(ii) To reflect any facts or events arising after the qualification date of the offering statement (or the most recent post-qualification amendment thereof) which, individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the offering statement.
(a)
(b)
(1) The securities to be qualified are offered for cash.
(2) The outside front cover page of the offering circular includes a bona fide estimate of the range of the maximum offering price and the maximum number of units of eligible securities to be offered, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The range must not exceed $2 for offerings where the upper end of the range is $10 or less or 20 percent if the upper end of the price range is over $10; and
(ii) The upper end of the range must be used in determining the aggregate offering price under § 228.300(a).
(3) The offering statement does not relate to securities to be offered by competitive bidding.
(4) The volume of securities (the number of units of eligible securities) to be offered may not be omitted in reliance on this paragraph (b).
A decrease in the volume of securities offered or a change in the bona fide estimate of the offering price range from that indicated in the offering circular filed as part of a qualified offering statement may be disclosed in the offering circular filed with the Commission pursuant to § 228.302(f), so long as the decrease in the volume of securities offered or change in the price range would not materially change the disclosure contained in the offering statement at qualification. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any decrease in the volume of securities offered and any deviation from the low or high end of the price range may be reflected in the offering circular supplement filed with the Commission pursuant to § 228.302(f)(1) or (3) if, in the aggregate, the decrease in volume and/or change in price represent no more than a 20 percent change from the maximum aggregate offering price calculable using the information in the qualified offering statement. In no circumstances may this paragraph be used to offer securities where the maximum aggregate offering price would result in the offering exceeding the limit set forth in § 228.300(a) or if the change would result in a Tier 1 offering becoming a Tier 2 offering. An offering circular supplement may not be used to increase the volume of securities being offered. Additional securities may only be offered pursuant to a new offering statement or post-qualification amendment qualified by the Commission.
(c)
(d)
(e)
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not pass upon the merits of or give its approval to any securities offered or the terms of the offering, nor does it pass upon the accuracy or completeness of any offering circular or other solicitation materials. These securities are offered pursuant to an exemption from registration with the Commission; however, the Commission has not made an independent determination that the securities offered are exempt from registration.
(f)
(1) An offering circular that discloses information previously omitted from the offering circular in reliance upon § 228.302(b) must be filed with the Commission no later than two business days following the earlier of the date of determination of the offering price or the date such offering circular is first used after qualification in connection with a public offering or sale.
(2) An offering circular that reflects information other than that covered in paragraph (f)(1) of this section that constitutes a substantive change from or addition to the information set forth in the last offering circular filed with the Commission must be filed with the Commission no later than five business days after the date it is first used after qualification in connection with a public offering or sale. If an offering circular filed pursuant to this paragraph (f)(2) consists of an offering circular supplement attached to an offering circular that previously had been filed or was not required to be filed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section because it did not contain substantive changes from an offering circular that previously was filed, only the offering circular supplement need be filed under paragraph (f) of this section, provided that the cover page of the offering circular supplement identifies the date(s) of the related offering circular and any offering circular supplements thereto that together constitute the offering circular with respect to the securities currently being offered or sold.
(3) An offering circular that discloses information, facts or events covered in both paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section must be filed with the Commission no later than two business days following the earlier of the date of the determination of the offering price or the date it is first used after qualification in connection with a public offering or sale.
(4) An offering circular required to be filed pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section that is not filed within the time frames specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section, as applicable, must be filed pursuant to this paragraph (f)(4) as soon as practicable after the discovery of such failure to file.
(5) Each offering circular filed under this section must contain in the upper right corner of the cover page the paragraphs of paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section under which the filing is made, and the file number of the offering statement to which the offering circular relates.
After the filing of an offering statement, but before its qualification, written offers of securities may be made if they meet the following requirements:
(a)
An offering statement pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets relating to these securities has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information contained in this Preliminary Offering Circular is subject to completion or amendment. These securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy be accepted before the offering statement filed with the Commission is qualified. This Preliminary Offering Circular shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor may there be any sales of these securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful. We may elect to satisfy our obligation to deliver a Final Offering Circular by sending you a notice within two business days after the completion of our sale to you that contains the URL where the Final Offering Circular or the offering statement in which such Final Offering Circular was filed may be obtained.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) State that no money or other consideration is being solicited, and if sent in response, will not be accepted;
(2) State that no offer to buy the securities can be accepted and no part of the purchase price can be received until the offering statement is qualified, and any such offer may be withdrawn or revoked, without obligation or commitment of any kind, at any time before notice of its acceptance given after the qualification date;
(3) State that a person's indication of interest involves no obligation or commitment of any kind; and
(4) After the public filing of the offering statement:
(i) State from whom a copy of the most recent version of the Preliminary Offering Circular may be obtained, including a phone number and address of such person;
(ii) Provide the URL where such Preliminary Offering Circular, or the offering statement in which such Preliminary Offering Circular was filed, may be obtained; or
(iii) Include a complete copy of the Preliminary Offering Circular.
(c)
(d)
(1) in the case of paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, the revised Preliminary Offering Circular will be provided to any persons making new inquiries and will be recirculated to any persons making any previous inquiries; or
(2) in the case of paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section, the URL continues to link directly to the most recent Preliminary Offering Circular or to the offering statement in which such revised Preliminary Offering Circular was filed.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) A special financial report on Form 1-KC or Form 1-SC (§ 239.602) if the offering statement did not contain the following:
(A) Financial statements (which are required to be audited for Tier 2) for the issuer's most recent fiscal year (or for the life of the issuer if less than a full fiscal year) preceding the fiscal year in which the issuer's offering statement became qualified; or
(B) unaudited financial statements covering the first six months of the issuer's current fiscal year if the offering statement was qualified during the last six months of that fiscal year.
(ii) The special financial report described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section must be filed under cover of Form 1-KC within 120 calendar days after the qualification date of the offering statement and must include audited financial statements for such fiscal year or other period specified in that paragraph, as the case may be. The special financial report described in paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B) of this section must be filed under cover of Form 1-SC within 90 calendar days after the qualification date of the offering statement and must include the semiannual financial statements for the first six months of the issuer's fiscal year, which may be unaudited.
(iii) A special financial report must be signed in accordance with the requirements of the form on which it is filed.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(c)
(1) The duty to file reports under paragraph (a) of this section with respect to a class of securities “held of record” (which shall be as defined in § 240.12g5-1 for purposes of determining whether securities are “held of record” under this section) by less than 300 persons shall be suspended for such class of securities immediately upon filing with the Commission a transition report on Form TR (§ 239.604) if the issuer of such class has filed all reports required to be filed under this rule before the date of such Form TR filing for the shorter of:
(i) The period since the issuer became subject to such reporting obligation; or
(ii) Its most recent three fiscal years and the portion of the current year preceding the date of filing Form TR.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the term
(3) The ability to suspend reporting, as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, is not available for any class of securities if:
(i) During that fiscal year an offering statement was qualified;
(ii) The issuer has not filed an annual report under this rule or the Exchange Act for the fiscal year in which an offering statement was qualified; or
(iii) Offers or sales of securities of that class are being made pursuant to an offering under this subpart.
(d)
(i) Automatically terminate if the issuer is eligible to suspend its duty to file reports under paragraphs (c)(1) and (3) of this section; or
(ii) Recommence with the report covering the most recent financial period after that included in any effective registration statement or filed Exchange Act report.
(2) If an issuer satisfies the conditions of the safe harbor in § 228.400 or the covered investment contract otherwise ceases to exist during the period in which the issuer is required to file reports under paragraph (a) of this section, the issuer's obligation to file reports under paragraph (a) of this section will terminate immediately upon filing with the Commission a transition report on Form TR.
(a)
(1) No exemption is available or any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of Regulation Crypto Assets have not been complied with;
(2) The offering statement, any sales or solicitation of interest material, or any report filed under § 228.305 contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading;
(3) The offering is being made or would be made in violation of section 17 of the Securities Act;
(4) An event has occurred after the filing of the offering statement that would have rendered the exemption hereunder unavailable if it had occurred before such filing;
(5) Any person specified in § 230.262(a) of this chapter has been indicted for any crime or offense of the character specified in § 230.262(a)(1) of this chapter, or any proceeding has been initiated for the purpose of enjoining any such person from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice of the character specified in § 230.262(a)(2) of this chapter, or any proceeding has been initiated for the purposes of § 230.262(a)(3) through (8) of this chapter; or
(6) The issuer or any promoter, officer, director, or underwriter has failed to cooperate, or has obstructed or refused to permit the making of an investigation by the Commission in connection with any offering made or proposed to be made in reliance on Regulation Crypto Assets.
(b)
(1) That such order has been entered, together with a brief statement of the reasons for the entry of the order; and
(2) That the Commission, upon receipt of a written request within 30 calendar days after the entry of the order, will, within 20 calendar days after receiving the request, order a hearing at a place to be designated by the Commission.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
A covered investment contract will be deemed to have ceased to exist, and the crypto asset that was subject to the covered investment contract will be deemed not to constitute or represent or to be subject to that investment contract for purposes of section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)) and section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10)), if the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The issuer of the covered investment contract has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised it would engage in under the covered investment contract and is not making and does not intend to make any new representations or promises to engage in essential managerial efforts with respect to the crypto asset; and
(b) The issuer of the covered investment contract files a transition report containing the information
For purposes of section 18(b)(3) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77r(b)(3)), a “qualified purchaser” means any person to whom securities are offered or sold pursuant to:
(a) An offering under Regulation Crypto Assets (§§ 228.100 through 228.500); or
(b) An offering pursuant to a transaction by any person other than an issuer, underwriter, or dealer with respect to a covered investment contract (as defined in § 228.100);
(1) The issuer has satisfied the requirements of an exemption under Regulation Crypto Assets with respect to such covered investment contract; and
(2) The issuer remains subject to, and is current with respect to, such exemption's disclosure and filing requirements and/or periodic reporting obligations, as applicable.
15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78
Section 230.151 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 77s(a).
Section 230.160 is also issued under section 104(d) of the Electronic Signatures Act.
Section 230.193 is also issued under sec. 943, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
Sections 230.400 to 230.499 issued under secs. 6, 8, 10, 19, 48 Stat. 78, 79, 81, and 85, as amended (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77h, 77j, 77s).
Sec. 230.457 also issued under secs. 6 and 7, 15 U.S.C. 77f and 77g.
Section 230.502 is also issued under 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30.
(c) * * *
(6) Regulation Crypto Assets, in the case of:
(i) An offering in reliance on § 228.200, on the date the issuer first made an offer of its securities in reliance on § 228.200; or
(ii) An offering in reliance on subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets, on the earlier of the date the issuer first made an offer soliciting interest in a contemplated securities offering in reliance on subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets, or the public filing of a Form 1-CRYPTO offering statement.
(d) * * *
(5) Regulation Crypto Assets, in the case of:
(i) An offering in reliance on § 228.200, on the later of the date:
(A) The issuer entered into a binding commitment to sell all securities to be sold under the offering (subject only to conditions outside of the investor's control); or
(B) The issuer and its agents ceased efforts to make further offers to sell the issuer's securities under such offering;
(ii) An offering in reliance on subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets, on:
(A) The withdrawal of an offering statement under § 228.307(a);
(B) The filing of a transition report on Form TR (§ 239.604);
(C) The declaration by the Commission that the offering statement has been abandoned under § 228.307(a); or
(D) The date, after the third anniversary of the date the offering statement was initially qualified, on which § 228.300(c)(3)(i)(F) prohibits the issuer from continuing to sell securities using the offering statement, or any earlier date on which the offering terminates by its terms;
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) At the time such statements are made or reaffirmed, either the issuer is subject to the reporting requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and has complied with the requirements of Rule 13a-1 or 15d-1 (§§ 239.13a-1 or 239.15d-1 of this chapter) thereunder, if applicable, to file its most recent annual report on Form 10-K, Form 20-F, or Form 40-F; or if the issuer is not subject to the reporting requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the statements are made in a registration statement filed under the Act, offering statement or solicitation of interest, written document or broadcast script under Regulation A or subpart C of Regulation Crypto Assets or pursuant to sections 12(b) or (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78
Section 232.302 is also issued under secs. 3(a) and 302, Public Law No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(xxxvii) Form 1-N (§ 249.10 of this chapter);
(xxxviii) Form 15A (§ 249.801 of this chapter); and
(xxxix) Filings made pursuant to Regulation Crypto Assets (§§ 228.100 through 228.500 of this chapter).
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78
This form shall be used for filing under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form 1-CRYPTO is attached as Appendix A to this document. Form 1-CRYPTO will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This form shall be used for filing annual reports under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form 1-KC is attached as Appendix B to this document. Form 1-KC will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This form shall be used for filing semiannual reports under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form 1-SC is attached as Appendix C to this document. Form 1-SC will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This form shall be used for filing current reports under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form 1-UC is attached as Appendix D to this document. Form 1-UC will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This form shall be used to file a transition report under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form TR is attached as Appendix E to this document. Form TR will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This form shall be used to file a notice of reliance under Regulation Crypto Assets (17 CFR part 228).
Form NOR is attached as Appendix F to this document. Form NOR will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
By the Commission.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.