Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing one entity from the Entity List under the destination of Turkey.
This rule is effective August 21, 2026.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b). The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
The ERC determined to remove Atempo Proje Taahhüt Ses ve Görüntü Sistemleri Anonim Şirketi İstanbul Şubesi, Bülent Ecevit Bulvarı in Turkey from the Entity List based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16 (e) of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744 of the EAR.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. In particular, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, Section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, establishing and maintaining a list of foreign persons and end-uses that are determined to be a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States pursuant to the policy set forth in Section 1752(2)(A), and restricting exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of any controlled items to any foreign person or end-use so listed; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.
1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.
4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.
5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 1701
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) revises the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing two addresses associated with Arrow Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. from the Entity List under the destination of China, People's Republic of (China). This determination follows the removal from the Entity List of Arrow China Electronics Trading Co., Ltd., and the removal of six aliases for Arrow Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. in November 2025.
This rule is effective August 21, 2026.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email:
The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
The ERC determined to remove two addresses, 2/F and 3/F, Green 18, Phase 2, Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong; and Units 11001-11008E & 11001-11012W, 11th Floor, ATL Logistics Centre B, No. 8 Container Port Road South, Kwai Chung, Hong Kong, under Arrow Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. from the Entity List under the destination of China, based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR, and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in supplement no. 5 to part 744 of the EAR. This determination follows the removal from the Entity List of Arrow China Electronics Trading Co., Ltd., and the removal of six aliases for Arrow Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. in November 2025 (90 FR 50858, Nov. 12, 2025).
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. In particular, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Further, Section 1754(a)(1)-(16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1)-(16)) authorizes, inter alia, establishing and maintaining a list of foreign persons and end uses that are determined to be a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States pursuant to the policy set forth in Section 1752(2)(A), and restricting exports, reexports, and in-country transfers of any controlled items to any foreign person or end use so listed; apprising the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.
1. BIS has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.
4. Pursuant to Section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.
5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 1701
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the T/V DENISE FOSS (O.N. 1254223) and its tow, FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436). The moving safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the transportation of three ship-to-shore cranes. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Honolulu, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 24, 2026 through 9 a.m. on August 25, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 6 a.m. on August 19, 2026, until August 24, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact LCDR Carol Yin, Sector Honolulu Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 808-291-2923, or email
The Coast Guard received notification on August 3, 2026, that Pasha Hawaii will ship three ship-to-shore cranes from Los Angeles, CA to Honolulu, HI, via tug and barge, with a scheduled arrival date of August 14, 2026. The Coast Guard initially published a temporary final rule to implement a safety zone from August 13, 2026 through August 17, 2026 (91 FR 52023; August 12, 2026). Due to Tropical Storm Lala, the tug and barge's updated arrival date is August 19, 2026. The day and time of this safety zone enforcement will depend on the arrival, but enforcement may start as soon as 6 a.m. on August 19, 2026. Hazards from this shipment include but are not limited to the tug and barge being restricted in its ability to maneuver, which creates hazards for the public on the water. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu has determined that potential hazards associated with the shipment of the three ship-to-shore cranes are a safety concern for anyone while the tug and barge are transiting in Mamala Bay on its approach to Honolulu Harbor. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of the updated arrival date on August 17, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by August 19, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment while the tug and barge are approaching Honolulu Harbor. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a moving safety zone that will be enforced from August 19, 2026 through August 25, 2026. The day and time of enforcement will depend on the arrival of T/V DENISE FOSS (O.N. 1254223) and its tow, FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436), entering Mamala Bay in the vicinity of Honolulu Harbor and will be announced to the public in advance. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500 yard radius of the T/V DENISE FOSS (O.N. 1254223) and its tow, FOSS 3612 (O.N. 1255436). Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. An image of the vessel is available in the docket on
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (800) 552-6458. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service revises special regulations governing the use of personal watercraft at Gulf Islands National Seashore. This rule reduces the distance of flat wake speed zones from certain shorelines and codifies existing closures at West Petit Bois Island and the Fort Pickens ferry pier.
This rule is effective September 23, 2026.
The comments received on the proposed rule are available on
Richard A. Clark, Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Gulf Islands National Seashore (the Seashore) encompasses the longest stretch of federally protected seashore in the United States. The Seashore includes seven barrier islands that span nearly 160 miles, coastal mainland, and adjacent waters in the northeastern part of the Gulf of Mexico. The Seashore comprises 139,175 acres within Mississippi and Florida, 4,630 acres of which (consisting of Horn and Petit Bois Islands) are designated wilderness. The resources of the Seashore vary widely, including marine, bayou, salt marsh, live oak, and southern magnolia forests.
Congress established the Seashore in 1971 in order to preserve for public use and enjoyment areas possessing outstanding natural, historic, and recreational values. 16 U.S.C. 459h(a). The National Park Service (NPS) administers the Seashore as a unit of the National Park System and has the authority to regulate the use of and management of the Seashore as it considers necessary or proper. 54 U.S.C. 100751(a). This includes the authority to regulate boating and other activities on waters located within System units that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 54 U.S.C. 100751(b).
The Seashore is one of the most heavily visited units in the National Park System. The Seashore attracts several million visitors from throughout the nation, who come to enjoy the beach and cultural and historic features. More than 80% of the Seashore is marine habitat and accessible only by boat or other watercraft. Many visitors use personal watercraft (PWC) to access and enjoy the Seashore.
NPS general regulations at 36 CFR 3.9 state that PWC may be used only where authorized by special regulation and only in the 21 System units that are identified in those regulations, including the Seashore. In 2006, the NPS promulgated special regulations to manage the use of PWC at the Seashore. 71 FR 26244 (May 4, 2006). These regulations, which are codified at 36 CFR 7.12, establish where PWC may be used, how they may be operated, and where they may be landed. Among other things, they permit PWC use in all waters of the Seashore where other motorized vessels are allowed.
In 2008, Bluewater Network and The Wilderness Society filed a lawsuit claiming that the environmental assessment (EA) supporting the special regulations was inadequate and violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the NPS Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. In 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the impact analysis in the EA was inadequate and remanded the EA to the NPS.
In June 2019, consistent with the court's decision, the NPS completed a Final Personal Watercraft Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that contains a more comprehensive analysis of the impacts of PWC use within the Seashore. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this project was originally approved by the NPS Regional Director of Interior Region 2 on August 13, 2019. The NPS then revised the selected alternative to remove a
This rule implements the selected alternative identified in the amended ROD for the management of PWC use within the Seashore. The selected alternative maintains the existing special regulations at 36 CFR 7.12, except as explained below.
The existing special regulations prohibit the use of PWC at more than flat wake speed less than 0.5 miles from (i) either side of the pier of West Ship Island, and (ii) the shorelines of West Ship Island and the designated wilderness islands of Horn and Petit Bois. The existing flat wake speed zone extends 300 yards from all other shorelines within the Seashore. This rule reduces the size of the flat wake zone to (i) 300 yards from any shoreline in Mississippi (including the shorelines of Ship, Horn and Petit Bois islands) and (ii) 150 yards from any shoreline in Florida. Establishing consistent flat-wake zone distances within each district of the Seashore (Florida and Mississippi) should result in increased compliance with and easier enforcement of flat-wake zones. Reducing the size of the flat-wake zones will benefit visitors who use PWC by creating more freedom to operate PWC at higher speeds. The boundaries of the flat wake zones are based on near-shore bathymetric information and research on PWC impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation that shows that in a water depth of 3 feet or more, PWC have little negative impact to seagrass beds (Continental Shelf Associates 1997; MDNR 2002). The average distance from shorelines in the Florida district to the 3-foot depth contour is 150 yards. The 300 yard flat wake zone in the Mississippi district is based on the average distance to the 4-foot depth contour because similar 3-foot bathymetric data were not available for Mississippi. NPS law enforcement staff may place temporary floating buoys in the water as reference points to show PWC users what 150 yards and 300 yards from the shoreline looks like. This will be done on an as-needed basis, determined by NPS personnel, and will likely occur on select high-use days and weekends.
The existing special regulations allow PWC use anywhere within the Seashore except at specific locations listed in the regulations. 36 CFR 7.12(c)(1). This rule adds two locations to the list of closed areas: (i) the lakes, ponds, lagoons, and inlets of West Petit Bois Island in the Mississippi District; and (ii) within 200 feet of the ferry pier at Fort Pickens in the Florida District. West Petit Bois Island is a fast-changing barrier island. According to historic aerial imagery at the time the existing special regulations were promulgated in 2006, West Petit Bois Island did not have lakes, ponds, or inlets as it does now. The Fort Pickens ferry pier did not exist in 2006. Construction was completed in 2012. These closures have been implemented for years using the superintendent's discretionary authority in 36 CFR 1.5 to establish closures that are necessary for the protection of public safety and natural resources. They are consistent with existing closures in the special regulations that prohibit PWC use (i) in the lakes, ponds, lagoons, and inlets of other islands within the Seashore; and (ii) within 200 feet of the fishing piers at Fort Pickens. 36 CFR 7.12(c)(1).
This rule also replaces references to West Ship Island and East Ship Island in the existing regulations with a reference to Ship Island. In 2019, West Ship Island and East Ship Island were restored to a single island as part of the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program Comprehensive Barrier Island Restoration Project.
The NPS published a proposed rule in the
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O 12866. This rule is a “one-time” enabling regulation that expands consumption options for the American public by increasing opportunities for recreation at the Seashore. As a result, this rule qualifies as an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action pursuant to M-25-20, “Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192, Titled `Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' ” issued by the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, on March 26, 2025.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect 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), the CRA. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(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 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. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and has determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. Nevertheless, in support of the commitment of the Department of the Interior and the NPS for government-to-government consultation, the NPS submitted a letter to 14 Indian tribes during the development of the FEIS. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma responded that the locations considered in the FEIS are within the Nation's area of historic interest, and because of the potential adverse impact to the coastal sites, requested to be a consulting party. NPS staff held a conference call with representatives of the Muscogee Creek Nation, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to discuss their concerns. The tribal representatives expressed concern over looting and vandalism, but were not very concerned about wakes from PWC damaging resources. The NPS explained how law enforcement actions and closures established by the superintendent when necessary could help address their concerns.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule implements, in part, a comprehensive management action for PWC at the Seashore that constitutes a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NPS has prepared the FEIS, ROD and amended ROD under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. A copy of the FEIS, ROD and amended ROD, which contain a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, the alternatives considered, maps, the environmental impacts associated with this rule, and the basis for the selected alternative can be found online at
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
National parks, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 54 U.S.C. 100751, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7, as set forth below:
54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; Sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code 10-137 and D.C. Code 50-2201.07.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The lakes, ponds, lagoons, and inlets of Cat Island, Ship Island, Horn Island, West Petit Bois Island, and Petit Bois Island;
(iii) Within 200 feet from the remnants of the old fishing pier at Fort Pickens, within 200 feet from the new fishing pier at Fort Pickens, and within 200 feet from the ferry pier at Fort Pickens; and
(2) PWC may not be operated at greater than flat wake speed in the following locations:
(i) Within 300 yards from all shorelines in Mississippi; and
(ii) Within 150 yards from all shorelines in Florida.
(3) PWC are allowed to land at any point along the shore except as follows:
(i) PWC are prohibited on any shoreline adjacent to the closed areas listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
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 Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel in the northern zone of the Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS projects that landings will soon reach the revised commercial quota for Spanish mackerel in the northern zone of the Atlantic EEZ for the 2026-2027 fishing year. In accordance with the
This temporary rule is effective from August 25, 2026, through February 28, 2027.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Atlantic includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia on the east coast of Florida, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and NMFS, 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). All weights described for Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic EEZ apply as either round or gutted weight.
Atlantic Spanish mackerel are divided into northern and southern zones for management purposes. The northern zone for Spanish mackerel extends in the Atlantic EEZ from New York through North Carolina. The northern boundary of the northern zone extends from an intersection point off New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island at 41°18′16.249″ N latitude and 71°54′28.477″ W longitude, and proceeds southeast to 37°22′32.75″ N latitude and the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ. The southern boundary of the northern zone extends from the North Carolina and South Carolina state border along a line in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N latitude and 78°32′32.6″ W longitude to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ (50 CFR 622.369(b)(2)).
The commercial annual catch limit (ACL; equal to the commercial quota) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel (Atlantic Spanish mackerel) is 3.33 million pounds (lb) (1.51 million kilograms (kg)) (50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)). The commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is 662,670 lb (300,582 kg) and is 2,667,330 lb (1,209,881 kg) in the southern zone (50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). For the 2026-2027 fishing year, the Atlantic Spanish mackerel fishing year is from March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027 (50 CFR 622.7(b)(3)).
The regulation codified at 50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(iii) allows for commercial quota transfers between the northern and southern zones with approval from the Regional Administrator (RA) of the NMFS Southeast Region. Specifically, North Carolina or Florida, in consultation with the other states in their respective zones, may request approval from the RA to transfer part or all of its respective zone's annual commercial quota to the other zone. For the purposes of quota closures as described in 50 CFR 622.8, the receiving zone's quota will be the original quota plus any transferred amount, for that fishing year only. Landings associated with any transferred quota will be included in the total landings for Atlantic Spanish mackerel, which will be evaluated relative to the total ACL.
In a letter to NMFS dated July 16, 2026, the State of Florida requested the transfer of 250,000 lb (113,398 kg) of Atlantic Spanish mackerel commercial quota from the southern zone to the northern zone to allow the commercial quota for both zones in the current fishing year to be fully harvested. NMFS approved the transfer of commercial quota on July 20, 2026, and therefore, the revised northern zone commercial quota for Spanish mackerel is 912,670 lb (413,980 kg) and the revised southern zone commercial quota is 2,417,330 lb (1,096,482 kg) for the 2026-2027 fishing year.
The commercial AM for Atlantic Spanish mackerel requires NMFS to close the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone when landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial quota for that zone (50 CFR 622.388(d)(1)(i)). For Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone, NMFS projects that the 2026-2027 revised commercial quota will have been reached by August 25, 2026. Accordingly, the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is closed effective on August 25, 2026, and remains closed through February 28, 2027, the end of the current fishing year.
During the commercial closure, a person on a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial permit to harvest Atlantic Spanish mackerel may continue to retain this species in the northern zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a), if recreational harvest of Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone has not been closed (50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the commercial closure, Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone, including those fish harvested under the recreational bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor (50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.388(d)(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 rule implementing the commercial quota and AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are also contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the closure to protect the resource of Atlantic Spanish mackerel, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in additional harvest that exceeds the established commercial quota.
For the same reasons, there is 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
Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Secretary of Education proposes to amend the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) and other provisions in 2 CFR parts 3474 and 3485 to update the regulations and better align them with other U.S. Department of Education (Department) regulations and procedures, and to include technical updates from the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards published in the
We must receive your comments on or before September 23, 2026.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Zachary Rogers, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 245-6776. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
To ensure that public comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, the Department urges that each comment clearly identify the specific section or sections of the regulations that the comment addresses and that comments be in the same order as the regulations. In finalizing these proposed regulations, the Department may issue certain aspects of the final rule separately in order to appropriately respond to comments submitted by the public.
In instances where individual submissions appear to be duplicates or near duplicates of comments prepared as part of a writing campaign, the Department may choose to post to
Comments containing personal threats will not be posted to
During and after the comment period, you may inspect public comments about the proposed regulations by accessing
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, we propose to amend 2 CFR parts 3474 and 3485 and parts 75, 76, 77, and 79 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These changes are detailed in the Summary of Major Provisions of this Regulatory Action and the Significant Proposed Regulations section of this document.
• Make technical updates to ensure consistency across parts of EDGAR, including amending certain sections of its agency-specific Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards regulations in 2 CFR parts 3474 and 3485 by making technical updates to the cross-references cited in both parts to reflect revisions to the Uniform Administrative
• Promote efficiency and cost savings within the Department and become more consistent with common practices among other Federal agencies, with regard to the publishing of notices and priorities in §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8.
• Clarify and streamline the selection criteria the Secretary may use to make discretionary awards under § 75.210.
• Clarify procedural approaches, such as the making of continuation awards under § 75.253.
• Ensure merit practices and high standards for all grants under §§ 75.500 and 76.500.
• Align EDGAR with the evidence framework in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definitions on Evidence-Based Literacy, Education Choice, and Returning Education to the States, published in the
The applicable authority for this regulatory package is 20 U.S.C. 1221 through 1221-1; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c); 20 U.S.C. 3402; and 20 U.S.C. 3474, unless otherwise noted.
In paragraph (a), we propose to include the extent to which a problem is being addressed, in addition to the significance of the problem. We propose to broaden the focus to employment and career outcomes in paragraph (a)(2)(iii).
In paragraph (b) we propose to focus paragraph (b)(2)(ii) on the problem to be addressed by the proposed project. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), we propose to focus on the challenges more broadly, as well as the effective strategies to address said challenges. We propose a new paragraph (b)(2)(xviii) related to the services of high-quality personnel.
In paragraph (c), we propose edits to factors to add emphasis on the role of families in communities and edits for clarity and removal of potential redundancy in language within factors. In paragraph (c)(2)(xvii) we propose edits to focus the priority on academic standards for students. In paragraph (c)(2)(xxi) we propose to revise the factor to clarify the selection of project participants, to align with the merit language being proposed in § 75.500. In paragraph (c)(2)(xxiii) we propose the addition of implementation sites into the consideration of the incorporation of the work beyond the project period.
In paragraphs (d) and (e), we propose to revise paragraph (d)(2) and (e)(2) and to consolidate and remove paragraphs (d)(3) and (e)(3) to align the introduction of these criteria with the other selection criteria in § 75.210. In proposed redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(v), we propose to include technical assistance, in addition to training and professional development services. We also propose revisions to proposed redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(ix) to align more closely with language from the Secretary's Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness published in the
In paragraph (e), we propose revisions and a removal of current paragraph (e)(3)(iv) to focus the project personnel criterion on the qualifications of the personnel; as such, we propose to redesignate current paragraph (e)(3)(v) as paragraph (e)(2)(iv). We proposed to add a new paragraph (e)(2)(vi) to align with the merit language being proposed in § 75.500.
In paragraph (f), we propose revisions to emphasize the role of the applicant and contributions of partners in the project as well as a consideration of experiences in the qualifications of personnel.
In paragraph (g), we propose streamlining of paragraph (g)(2)(iv) to focus on the time commitment of the project personnel. Proposed revisions to paragraph (g)(2)(v) align with other proposed revisions to emphasize a focus on the family and community.
In paragraph (h), we propose revisions to factors to specify the level of evidence for which an evaluation is designed to meet, rather than a description of the evidence level without the naming of the evidence level.
In paragraph (i), we propose a revision to paragraph (i)(1) to streamline the paragraph to emphasize the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, without additional qualifiers, like how paragraph (1) is structured in other selection criteria. We propose a revision to paragraph (i)(2)(v) to streamline the factor to focus on the project, which is already inclusive of the scale of that project.
We propose revising the evidence definitions to include a new definition for “evidence framework,” and revising the definitions of “experimental study,” “moderate evidence,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” and “strong evidence.”
The proposed modifications to the definitions of “experimental study,” “moderate evidence,” “promising evidence,” “quasi-experimental design study,” and “strong evidence” align the definitions with 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i). The proposed definitions retain the reference to rigorous methodologies and remove references to the What Works Clearinghouse within the definitions for each tier of evidence, to allow for additional approaches that the Department may select for applicants to use to demonstrate that they have met rigorous evidence standards. The new proposed definition for “evidence framework” describes those additional approaches and includes the review aligned with What Works Clearinghouse as one approach that the Department may use to establish that applicants have met rigorous evidence standards. The Department may also consider other methods to verify the rigor of evidence as described in the definition of “evidence framework.”
This proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This regulatory action is expected to be considered an “Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.”
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563. We are only issuing the proposed regulations on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their minimal costs. The Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive Orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action.
The Department has identified a need for regulatory action to minimize administrative burden to the public by reducing the number of sources they need to access to view a notice, reduce costs for taxpayers and the Department, and promote efficiency within the Department. See further explanation above in the
The Department analyzed the costs and benefits of complying with these regulations. Most of the changes proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking are technical in nature and are unlikely to affect the administration of programs or allocation of benefits in any substantial way. Given the large number of edits proposed herein, we discuss each provision and its likely costs and benefits in turn below. We do not discuss edits proposed for which we are updating citations or cross-references and making other technical edits.
Proposed changes to § 75.4, which would add severability language for all of Part 75 and remove the separate severability language in §§ 75.63, 75.684, and 75.741, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.51, which would more clearly specify what an applicant must provide to prove nonprofit status, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would result in a reduction of administrative burden to the public as well as cost savings to the Department.
Currently, the Department publishes grant application information first to the
The proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would result in reductions to administrative and legal staff hours typically spent on preparing notices inviting applications for the
In addition, as required by law, the Department pays the Government Printing Office for each notice inviting applications published in the
In total, the Department estimates net present value benefits of $3,409,531 and $2,807,333 over 10 years at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. This value is equivalent to an annualized benefit of $399,701 per year over 10 years. The Department requests comments on the analysis and estimates contained in this Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Proposed changes to § 75.210, which would streamline word choice are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.220, which would clarify procedures for special circumstances for an application, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.222, which would update the submission process for unsolicited applications, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.228, which would allow the Secretary to give competitive preference to applicants who charge lower indirect costs than their negotiated rate, would provide the Department with greater flexibility to ensure that Federal funds are directed toward the activities and outcomes most central to a program's purpose. This authority would enable the Department to give competitive preference in competitions for applicants who charge lower indirect costs, based on the unique objectives and design of individual grant programs, particularly where program goals are best advanced by maximizing resources available for direct services, evidence-based interventions, capacity-building activities, or other programmatic investments. By establishing the competitive preference in the application notice, applicants would have clear expectations before applying, promoting consistency, fairness, and informed budgeting across all competitors. This flexibility would also strengthen the Department's stewardship of Federal funds by allowing it to align funding structures with program objectives and ensure that available resources are used as effectively as possible to achieve intended outcomes.
As a result of changes to § 75.228 to allow the Secretary to give competitive preference for applicants who charge lower indirect costs, the Department anticipates, within impacted programs, a transfer of grant project fund allocation from the indirect cost budget category to the direct cost budget category. We assume the proposed rule, when implemented by the Secretary, will increase the scope and impact of grant services by shifting funds from general administrative purposes towards core project activities directly related to the goals and objective of the grant award. While we are not able to monetize the scope of the potential benefit, we assume that this transfer will significantly expand the scope and impact of affected programs and therefore significantly improve educational outcomes.
We estimate, for the purposes of establishing a baseline, that the average indirect cost rate for non-restricted rate grant program is 25%.
We are unable to predict to what extent the Secretary will exercise the authority provided under this proposed rule in future years. Therefore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of multiple scenarios that evaluate the potential impact based on the number of new applicants impacted and to what extent the indirect cost rate is lowered
For the purposes of this analysis, the Department estimates that if the indirect cost rate for each of these sampled awards were, on average, lowered to 15%, the resulting allocations would be $90,000 to indirect costs and $510,000 for direct costs. This would be a transfer of $60,000 from indirect costs to direct costs per impacted grant award.
We assume that in each of the next 10 years, 750 new grant recipients would apply to programs where the Secretary gives competitive preference for applicants who charge lower indirect costs. Therefore, we estimate an annual transfer of $45,000,000 from indirect costs to direct costs over each of the next 10 years. To the extent that our sample underestimates the average indirect cost rate, the total amount transferred to the direct cost category would increase. The Department requests comments on the analysis and estimates contained in this Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Proposed changes to § 75.230, which would clarify future commitments of the Federal Government for an award, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.251, which would clarify the treatment of unobligated balances on a grant, are unlikely to generate quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.252, which would clarify the use of frontloading, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity and transparency of the Department's authority to frontload grant funds.
Proposed changes to § 75.253, which clarify the Secretary's role in making continuation determinations and the timeline for continuations, are unlikely to generate quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity and transparency of regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.500, which would require assurances from grantees, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 75.901, which would clarify how a grant may be terminated, including termination disputes, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 76.3, which would add severability language for all of Part 76 and remove the separate severability language in §§ 76.43, 76.684, and 76.784, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 76.700, which would add Executive orders to the list of authorities with which grantees must comply, are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and may benefit the Department and the general public by improving the clarity of the regulations.
Proposed changes to § 77.1(c), which will apply to any applicant applying to a program that incorporates any of the definitions identified in this notice, would result in cost savings for both applicants and the Department by reducing regulatory burden. As discussed previously in this notice, the proposed changes would update existing definitions and add new definitions, both of which are unlikely to generate any quantifiable costs and would benefit the public and the Department by improving the clarity and reducing the complexity of the regulations. In total, the Department estimates net present value benefits of $1,589,716 and $1,308,937 over 10 years at a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. This value is equivalent to an annualized benefit of $186,363 over 10 years. The regulations are expected to result in estimated annual cost transfers of $45,038,500 over 10 years following publication of these proposed regulations.
As a result of changes to § 77.1(c) to revise evidence definitions, the Department anticipates a reduced burden for applicants to competitive grant competitions. We assume the revised definitions will reduce the complexity of evidence definitions and ultimately reduce the number of hours required to prepare a grant application. The Department estimates 2 fewer hours from a grant writer (education administrator, loaded wage rate of $107.60/hour
Due to the addition of a new definition for “evidence framework,” in
The specific cost transfer would be dependent on how the Department utilizes the additional flexibility provided under the new definition of “evidence framework.” For the purposes of this analysis, the Department estimates, based on administrative data and experience, that the cost of an evidence review is $3,500 per application. We estimate that half (11) of the estimated 22
The Department believes the proposed changes to §§ 75.100, 75.104, 75.105, 75.222, 75.224, 79.3, 79.6, and 79.8 would yield other real and significant benefits that are not as straightforwardly monetized. The proposed changes would improve the quality of grant applications by ensuring that applicants have a single, definitive source of grant competition information and requirements. The proposed changes would ultimately improve project outcomes and yield significant economic benefit to the public. For example, the Department believes the proposed changes will be particularly beneficial to applicants that have never received a Federal grant award.
This section considers the effects that the final regulations may have on small entities in the educational sector as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.
The proposed regulatory action does not contain any information collection requirements.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Aged, Agriculture, American Samoa, Bilingual education, Blind, Business and Industry, Civil rights, Colleges and universities, Communications, Community development, Community facilities, Copyright, Credit, Cultural exchange programs, Education, Education of disadvantaged, Education of individuals with disabilities, Educational facilities, Educational research, Educational study programs, Electric power, Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Elementary and secondary education, Energy conservation, Equal educational opportunity, Federally affected areas, Government contracts, Grant programs, Grant administration, Guam, Home improvement, Homeless, Hospitals, Housing, Human research subjects, Indians, Indians—education, Infants and children, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, International organizations, Inventions and patents, Loan programs, Manpower training programs, Migrant labor, Mortgage insurance, Nonprofit organizations, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Privacy, Renewable energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Scholarships and fellowships, School construction, Schools, Science and technology, Securities, Small business, State and local governments, Student aid, Teachers, Telecommunications, Telephone, Urban areas, Veterans, Virgin Islands, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water resources, Water supply, Watersheds, Women.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accounting, Copyright, Education, Grant programs—education, Guam, Indemnity payments, Inventions and patents, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Youth organizations.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Education, Grant programs—education, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands Trust Territory, Prisons, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands, Youth organizations.
Education, Grant programs—education.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend parts 3474, and 3485 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and parts 75, 76, and 77 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb
(a) The Department of Education adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR 200.102(a) and 2 CFR 200.208(a). Thus, this part gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance and supplements the guidance as needed for the Department.
The Secretary or a pass-through entity may, in appropriate circumstances, designate the specific conditions established under 2 CFR 200.208 as “high-risk conditions” and designate a non-Federal entity subject to specific conditions established under § 200.208 as “high-risk”.
E.O. 12549 (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235); sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The contract is awarded by a participant in a nonprocurement transaction that is covered under 2 CFR 180.210, and the contract amount is expected to equal or exceed $25,000.
(2) The contract requires the consent of an official of a Federal agency. In that case, the contract is always a covered transaction, regardless of the amount or who awarded it. For example, it could be a subcontract awarded by a contractor at a tier below a nonprocurement transaction, as shown in the Appendix to Part 3485—Covered Transactions.
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Section 75.263 also issued under 2 CFR 200.308(g)(1).
Section 75.617 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3504, 3505.
Section 75.500 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c).
Section 75.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 1232h.
If any provision of this part or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.
(c) Cross Reference: See 2 CFR 200.328, Financial reporting, and 200.329, Monitoring and reporting program performance; and 34 CFR 75.117, Information needed for a multi-year project, 75.250 through 75.253, Approval of multi-year projects, 75.590, Evaluation by the grantee, and 75.720, Financial and performance reports.
In determining the selection criteria to evaluate applications submitted in a grant competition, the Secretary may select one or more of the following criteria and may select from among the list of optional factors under each criterion. The Secretary may define a selection criterion by selecting one or more specific factors within a criterion or assigning factors from one criterion to another criterion.
(a)
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The data presented (including a comparison to local, State, regional, national, or international data) that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will provide support, resources, or services; or otherwise address the needs of the target population and close gaps in educational opportunity or employment and career outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on improving outcomes or otherwise addressing the needs of the target population.
(v) The extent to which the specific nature and magnitude of gaps or challenges are identified, and the extent to which these gaps or challenges will be addressed by the services, supports, infrastructure, or opportunities described in the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare individuals for employment in fields and careers in which there are demonstrated shortages.
(b)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is relevant at the national level.
(ii) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project, and the extent to which the proposed project would address the problem or issue.
(iii) The extent to which findings from the proposed project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing understanding of challenges (including the underlying or related challenges), effective strategies for addressing challenges, and effective implementation of effective strategies.
(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of rehabilitative services, increase the number or quality of rehabilitation counselors, or develop and implement effective strategies for providing vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
(v) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in systemic change that supports continuous, sustainable, and measurable improvement.
(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study, including the extent to which the contributions may be used by other appropriate agencies, organizations, institutions, or entities.
(vii) The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.
(viii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local, State, regional, or national capacity to provide, improve, sustain, or expand training or services that address the needs of the target population.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of innovative and effective strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a similar problem.
(xi) The likely utility of the resources (such as materials, processes, techniques, or data infrastructure) that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for effective use in a variety of conditions, populations, or settings.
(xii) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated to the target population and local community in ways that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies.
(xiii) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation by a variety of populations or settings.
(xiv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement.
(xv) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in employment, independent living services, or both, as appropriate.
(xvi) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project that demonstrate its impact for the target population in terms of breadth and depth of services.
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project introduces an innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based project component to serve different populations, an extension of an existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of various project components to explore combined effects, or development of an emerging project component that needs further testing.
(xviii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to improve the provision of services, increase the number of high-quality personnel, or develop and implement effective practices to improve outcomes for the target population.
(c)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project demonstrates meaningful community and family engagement and input to ensure that the project is appropriate to successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs and will be used to inform continuous improvement strategies.
(iii) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project's logic model or other conceptual framework was developed based on engagement of a broad range of community members and partners.
(v) The extent to which the proposed project includes specific, measurable targets, connected to strategies, activities, resources, outputs, and outcomes, and uses reliable data to measure progress and inform continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to enable successful achievement of project objectives.
(vii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design, such as qualitative and quantitative design, and procedures for documenting project activities and results for the target population.
(viii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
(ix) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls, continuous improvement efforts, and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products.
(x) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it is designed to build capacity and yield sustainable results that will extend beyond the project period.
(xi) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research.
(xii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to meeting program purposes and requirements and serving the target population.
(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to any absolute priority or absolute priorities used in the competition.
(xiv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate or build on ideas, strategies, and efforts from similar external projects to improve relevant outcomes, using existing funding streams from other programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal resources.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project is informed by similar past projects implemented by the applicant or a partner with demonstrated results.
(xvi) The extent to which the proposed project will include
(xvii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.
(xviii) The extent to which the proposed project includes explicit plans for meaningful and ongoing community member and partner engagement, including their involvement in planning, implementing, and revising project activities for the target population.
(xix) The extent to which the proposed project includes plans for family involvement.
(xx) The extent to which performance feedback and formative data are integral to the design of the proposed project and will be used to inform continuous improvement.
(xxi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that admissions, promotion, or participant selection decisions made under the grant are based on academic excellence and high standards, without consideration of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or any proxies for these characteristics, except where a legally permissible exception applies and is expressly identified and justified in the application.
(xxii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the project period, including a multiyear financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; demonstration of broad support from community members and partners (such as State educational agencies, educators, families, business and industry, community members, and State vocational rehabilitation agencies) that are critical to the project's long-term success; or a plan for capacity-building by leveraging one or more of these types of resources.
(xxiii) The extent to which there is a plan to incorporate the project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the project period.
(xxiv) The extent to which the proposed project will increase efficiency in the use of time, staff, money, or other resources in order to improve results and increase productivity.
(xxv) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with, or build on, similar or related efforts in order to improve relevant outcomes, using non-Federal funds or resources.
(xxvi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale that is aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(xxvii) The extent to which the proposed project represents implementation of the evidence cited in support of the proposed project with fidelity.
(xxviii) The extent to which the applicant plans to allocate a significant portion of its requested funding to the evidence-based project components.
(xxix) The strength of the commitment from key decision-makers at proposed implementation sites.
(xxx) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by promising evidence.
(d)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project were determined with input from the community to be served to ensure that they are appropriate and responsive to the needs of the target population.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by the target population that it is intended to serve.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge in relevant fields and evidence-based project components.
(iv) The likely benefit to the target population, as indicated by the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be provided.
(v) The extent to which the training, professional development, or technical assistance services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
(vi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are likely to provide long-term solutions to alleviate the personnel shortages that have been identified or are the focus of the proposed project.
(vii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous and relevant standards.
(viii) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in early childhood and family outcomes.
(ix) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to meaningful improvements in the skills and competencies necessary to gain employment in high-wage, high-growth, and high-demand jobs, careers, and industries or build capacity for independent living.
(x) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners, including those from the target population, to maximize the effectiveness of project services.
(xi) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-Federal resources.
(xii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on the target population with the greatest needs, as demonstrated by the data relevant to the project.
(xiii) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare high-quality personnel to provide evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for the target population.
(e)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including relevant training or experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population.
(ii) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualifications or experiences required for the proposed project, including relevant training or experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and with the target population.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed planning, implementing, and evaluating project team are familiar with the assets, needs, and other contextual considerations of the proposed implementation sites.
(v) The extent to which the proposed planning, implementing, and evaluating project team are familiar with the assets,
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that hiring, promotion, and compensation decisions made under the grant will be based solely on merit and high standards, without consideration of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or any proxies for these characteristics, except where a legally permissible exception applies and is expressly identified and justified in the application, such as for a religious organization or an entity undertaking lawful remedial measures.
(f)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of specific roles and contributions of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project, and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits.
(v) The extent to which the costs of the proposed project would permit other entities to replicate the project.
(vi) The level of initial matching funds or other commitment from partners, indicating the likelihood for potential continued support of the project after Federal funding ends.
(vii) The potential for the purposes, activities, or benefits of the proposed project to be institutionalized into the ongoing practices and programs of the applicant, agency, or organization and continue after Federal funding ends.
(g)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community member and partner input, to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population.
(iv) The extent to which the time commitments of project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(v) How the applicant will ensure that various perspectives, including those from the target population, are brought to bear in the design, implementation, operation, evaluation, and improvement of the proposed project, including those of families, educators, community-based organizations, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
(h)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are appropriate to the context within which the project operates and the target population of the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are designed to measure the fidelity of implementation of the project.
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative.
(v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide guidance for quality assurance and continuous improvement.
(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(vii) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential implementation in other settings.
(viii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet strong evidence.
(ix) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet moderate or strong evidence.
(x) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence of effectiveness of the project on relevant outcomes that would meet promising evidence.
(xi) The extent to which the evaluation employs an appropriate analytic strategy to build evidence about the relationship between key project components, mediators, and outcomes and inform decisions on which project components to continue, revise, or discontinue.
(xii) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to inform how implementation is associated with outcomes.
(xiii) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a dissemination strategy that is likely to promote others' learning from the project.
(xiv) The extent to which the evaluator has the qualifications, including the relevant training, experience, and independence, required to conduct an evaluation of the proposed project, including experience conducting evaluations of similar methodology as proposed and with evaluations for the proposed population and setting.
(xv) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to conduct the project evaluation effectively.
(xvi) The extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness.
(i)
(1) The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project.
(2) In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The quality of the strategies to reach scale by expanding the project to new populations or settings.
(ii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national or regional level during the grant period.
(iii) The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to further develop and bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national level during the grant period, based on the findings of the proposed project.
(iv) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information and resources on its project to support further development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement project components in additional settings or with other populations.
(v) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which there is a market of potential entities that will commit resources toward implementation.
(vii) The quality of the strategies to scale that take into account and are responsive to previous barriers to expansion.
(viii) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness.
(ix) The quality of the plan to develop revenue sources that will make the project self-sustaining.
(x) The extent to which the project will create reusable data and evaluation tools and techniques that facilitate expansion and support continuous improvement.
To assure prompt consideration, an applicant submitting an unsolicited application should send the application, marked “Unsolicited Application” in the subject line, to
(a) If the Secretary determines that special consideration of applicants electing to use a lower indirect cost rate is appropriate, the Secretary may provide competitive preference to applicants that meet one or more of the conditions in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) As used in this section, “lower indirect cost rate” means an applicant that meets one or more of the following conditions:
(1) The applicant proposes to use an indirect cost rate, as defined by §§ 75.560-75.564, that is lower than the applicant's approved negotiated indirect cost rate that they would be otherwise entitled to take under the specific grant program by the following percentage tiers:
(i) 5% or more;
(ii) 10% or more;
(iii) 20% or more;
(iv) 30% or more;
(v) 40% or more;
(vi) 50% or more; or
(vii) Voluntary election not to charge any indirect costs;
(2) Elect to use the
(c) Applicants proposing a lower indirect cost rate must adhere to that percentage reduction of their approved negotiated indirect cost rate for the life of the grant.
(d) To be considered for competitive preference, applicants must include documentation in their application, acceptable to the Secretary, that verifies their approved indirect cost rate. As applicable, applicants must also clearly state the lower indirect cost rate percentage and the corresponding amount in the budget narrative.
(e) Applicants that do not have a current federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, to receive competitive preference, may—
(1) Elect to use the
(2) If an applicant later obtains a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, certify to use only the lower indirect cost rate percentage, rather than the full indirect cost rate the applicant would otherwise be entitled to claim.
(f) For applicants with federally approved cost allocation plans—
(1) the competitive preference criteria in paragraph (b), will be evaluated on the basis of the allocated indirect costs that could have been charged to the award by the percentage tiers reduction of the elected lower indirect costs charge or election not to charge indirect costs.
(2) To be considered for competitive preference, applicants must include documentation in their application, acceptable to the Secretary, that verifies their approved cost allocation plan. Applicants must also clearly state the reduced indirect cost charge and the corresponding reduction percentage and amount in the budget narrative.
(g) The election to charge lower indirect costs may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award.
(a) * * *
(b) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the Federal Government in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
(d) If it becomes apparent to the Secretary that the amount of Federal funds awarded and available to the grantee for that period, including any unspent balance carried forward from prior periods, exceeds the grantee's needs for that period, the Secretary may adjust the amounts awarded by deobligating the excess.
(a) The Secretary may, in approving a multi-year project, approve:
(1) Partial frontload funding for future budget periods of the project, beyond the initial budget period; or
(2) Full frontload funding for the entire project period for a multi-year project, but not to exceed the § 75.250 Maximum project period.
(b) A grantee may only draw down funds in accordance with its approved budget for that budget year and may not draw down funds in excess of that amount without prior approval.
(c) Either—
(1) A grantee must demonstrate, on an annual basis, that it has made substantial progress in achieving—
(i) The goals and objectives of the project; and
(ii) The performance targets in the grantee's approved application or targets established by the Secretary, if the Secretary established performance measurement requirements for the grant in the application notice; or
(2) Obtain the Secretary's approval for changes to the project that—
(i) Do not increase the amount of funds obligated to the project by the Secretary; and
(ii) Enable the grantee to achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the performance targets of the project, including targets established by the Secretary, if any, without changing the scope or objectives of the project;
(d) Submit all reports as required by § 75.118;
(e) Continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements of the grant program;
(f) Maintain financial and administrative management systems that meet the requirements in 2 CFR 200.302 and 200.303; and
(g) Receive a determination from the Secretary that continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
(a)
(1) Either—
(i) Demonstrate that it has made substantial progress in achieving—
(A) The goals and objectives of the project; and
(B) The performance targets in the grantee's approved application or targets established by the Secretary, if the Secretary established performance measurement requirements for the grant in the application notice; or
(ii) Obtain the Secretary's approval for changes to the project that—
(A) Do not increase the amount of funds obligated to the project by the Secretary; and
(B) Enable the grantee to achieve the goals and objectives of the project and meet the performance targets of the project, including targets established by the Secretary, if any, without changing the scope or objectives of the project;
(2) Submit all reports as required by § 75.118;
(3) Continue to meet all applicable eligibility requirements of the grant program;
(4) Maintain financial and administrative management systems that meet the requirements in 2 CFR 200.302 and 200.303; and
(5) Receive a determination from the Secretary that continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The Secretary makes the award under §§ 75.231 through 75.236; and
(2) The new budget period begins on the day after the previous budget period ends.
(e)
(1) Within the original project period of the grant and notwithstanding any requirements in 2 CFR part 200, a grantee may expend funds that have not been obligated at the end of a budget period for obligations in subsequent budget periods if—
(i) The obligation is for an allowable cost within the approved scope and objectives of the project; and
(ii) The obligation is not otherwise prohibited by applicable statutes, regulations, or the conditions of an award.
(2) The Secretary may—
(i) Require the grantee to submit a written statement describing how the funds made available under paragraph (d)(1) of this section will be used; and
(ii) Determine the amount of new funds that the Department will make available for the subsequent budget period after considering the statement the grantee provides under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section and any other information available to the Secretary about the use of funds under the grant.
(3) In determining the amount of new funds to make available to a grantee under this section, the Secretary considers whether the unobligated funds made available are needed to complete activities that were planned for completion in the prior budget period.
(4) A decision to reduce the amount of a continuation award under this paragraph (d) does not entitle a grantee to reconsideration under 2 CFR 200.342.
(5) When making a continuation award, the Secretary may issue a partial award, provide funding in installments, or delay the release of funds.
(f)
(g)
(1) A grantee fails to meet any of the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section; or
(2) A grantee fails to ensure that data submitted to the Department as a condition of the grant meet the definition of “quality data” in 34 CFR 77.1(c) and does not have a plan acceptable to the Secretary for addressing data-quality issues in the next budget period.
(h)
(1) A request for reconsideration must—
(i) Be submitted in writing to the Department official identified in the notice denying the continuation award by the date specified in that notice; and
(ii) Set forth the grantee's basis for disagreeing with the Secretary's decision not to make a continuation award and include relevant supporting documentation.
(2) The Secretary will consider the request for reconsideration.
(i)
(j)
(a) * * *
(1) The grantee meets the requirements for extension in 2 CFR 200.308(g)(2); and
A grantee may incur pre-award costs as specified in 2 CFR 200.308(g)(1) unless—
(f) A grantee must:
(1) Ensure that hiring, admissions, promotions, and compensation practices under the grant are based on merit and high standards, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies (such as a religious organization or an organization engaged in remedial action).
(2) Ensure that the grantee's employment practices do not compel statements of belief in support or opposition to any political views as a condition of employment, admission, or project participation, unless an appropriate exception applies.
(3) Ensure that, where applicable, the grantee has policies protecting freedom of speech, inquiry, and press as specified and required by 34 CFR 75.500(a)-(e).
(a) * * *
(b) These conflict of interest regulations do not apply to a “local government,” or a “State,” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) If the grantee does not have a federally recognized indirect cost rate agreement on the date on which the training grant is awarded, the grantee may elect to use the temporary indirect cost rate authorized under § 75.560(d) or a rate of 8 percent of the MTDC base. The de minimis rate may not be used on educational training programs.
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(c) If a revision to the timeline, budget, or approved final working specifications is required, the grantee must request prior written approval consistent with 2 CFR 200.308(f).
(e) Grantees that are not allowed to make subgrants under paragraph (b) of this section are authorized to contract, as needed, for supplies, equipment, and other services, in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D (2 CFR 200.300 through 200.346).
(a) A grant may be terminated in part or its entirety as follows:
(1) For noncompliance by the grantee or subgrantee;
(2) For convenience of the Secretary or pass-through entity;
(3) By mutual agreement of the parties;
(4) Upon notification by the grantee or subgrantee; or
(5) Pursuant to additional terms and conditions.
(b) The Secretary may, but is not limited to, employ the following remedies for grants:
(1) 2 CFR 200.339 (Remedies for noncompliance).
(2) 2 CFR 200.340 (Termination).
(3) 2 CFR 200.341 (Notification of termination requirement).
(4) 2 CFR 200.342 (Opportunities to object, hearings and appeals).
(5) 2 CFR 200.343 (Effects of suspension and termination).
(6) 2 CFR 200.345 (Post-closeout adjustments and continuing responsibilities).
(7) Termination for Convenience.
(c) The Secretary may designate the Office of Administrative Law Judges to resolve disputes consistent with 34 CFR 81.3(b).
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
Section 76.101 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7844(b).
Section 76.127 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.128 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.129 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.130 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.131 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.132 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.134 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.136 also issued under 48 U.S.C. 1469a.
Section 76.140 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231g(a), and 3474.
Section 76.301 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 7846(b).
Section 76.401 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231b-2, and 3474.
Section 76.500 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1228a(c).
Section 76.709 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.
Section 76.710 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1225(b), and 3474.
Section 76.720 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1231a, and 3474.
Section 76.740 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1232g, 1232h, and 3474.
Section 76.783 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1231b-2.
Section 76.785 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.786 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.787 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.788 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 7221e.
Section 76.901 also issued under 20 U.S.C. 1234.
If any provision of this part or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of the part or the application of its provisions to any person, act, or practice shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Grantees, in cases where subgrants are prohibited by applicable statutes or regulations or the terms and conditions of a grant award, are authorized to contract, as needed, for supplies, equipment, and other services, in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart D (2 CFR 200.300 through 200.346).
(f) A grantee must:
(1) Ensure that hiring, admissions, promotions, and compensation practices under the grant are based on merit and qualification, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or proxies thereof unless an appropriate exception applies such as a religious organization or an organization engaged in remedial action.
(2) Ensure that the grantee's employment practices do not compel statements of belief in support or opposition to any political views as a condition of employment, admission, or project participation, unless an appropriate exception applies.
(3) Ensure that that, where applicable, the grantee has policies protecting freedom of speech, inquiry, and press as specified and required by 34 CFR 75.500(a)-(e).
A State and a subgrantee shall comply with § 76.500, the State plan, applicable statutes, regulations, Executive orders, and approved applications, and shall use Federal funds in accordance with those statutes, regulations, Executive orders, plans, and applications.
(b) * * *
(2) The Secretary requires a State to report more frequently than annually, including reporting under 2 CFR 3474.10 and 2 CFR 200.208 (Specific conditions) and 2 CFR 3474.10 (Clarification regarding 2 CFR 200.208) or 2 CFR 200.302 Financial management and 200.303 Internal controls.
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:
(i) Whether or not a study is an experimental study or a quasi-experimental design study;
(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;
(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to participants in one condition over another, and that are measured consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;
(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality, including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and
(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity of the study of any changes to the sample over time.
(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by one or more of the following:
(i) An organization with relevant expertise that has demonstrated to the Department that it has a high-quality, rigorous, transparent (
(ii) By peer reviewers with statistical expertise who apply an evidence framework consistent with each aspect identified in (a) in reviewing support for an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence, as applicable; or
(iii) By the Department or peer reviewers with statistical expertise who affirm an applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or moderate evidence because it is supported by study ratings included in the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:
(1) a practice guide;
(2) an intervention report; or
(3) individual studies otherwise assessed to meet strong evidence or moderate evidence.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2025-17-03, which applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. AD 2025-17-03 requires inspecting the emergency sea anchor and, depending on the result, replacing the emergency sea anchor. Since the FAA issued AD 2025-17-03, it has been determined that an additional inspection of an affected emergency sea anchor must be accomplished. This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2025-17-03, would also require an additional inspection, and depending on the result, replacing the emergency sea anchor. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by October 8, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
David Enns, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4147; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David Enns, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2025-17-03, Amendment 39-23113 (90 FR 40958, August 22, 2025) (AD 2025-17-03), for all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. AD 2025-17-03 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA Emergency AD 2025-0146-E, dated July 10, 2025 (EASA Emergency AD 2025-0146-E) to correct an unsafe condition identified as a corroded emergency sea anchor pin.
AD 2025-17-03 requires inspecting the emergency sea anchor and, depending on the result, replacing the emergency sea anchor. The FAA issued AD 2025-17-03 to detect and correct corrosion on the anchor pin.
Since the FAA issued AD 2025-17-03, EASA superseded EASA Emergency AD 2025-0146-E and issued EASA AD 2025-0278, which was later revised to EASA AD 2025-0278R1, dated January 14, 2026 (EASA AD 2025-0278R1) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that an additional inspection of the emergency sea anchor is necessary. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the anchor pin and release the emergency sea anchor in flight, which could result in damage to the rotors and loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0278R1, which specifies procedures for inspecting the emergency sea anchor for corrosion and, depending on the results, replacing the emergency sea anchor with a serviceable part. EASA AD 2025-0278R1 also specifies that as an alternative to the replacement of an affected part, it is allowed to install a locally made plug, provided the plug is manufactured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Additionally, EASA AD 2025-0278R1 prohibits installing an affected emergency sea anchor unless it is new (never previously installed on a helicopter) or an affected part that has passed an inspection (no defects found).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2025-17-03. This proposed AD would also require an additional inspection of an affected emergency sea anchor and accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0278R1, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0278R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0278R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0278R1 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0278R1. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0278R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If further action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 44 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by October 8, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2025-17-03, Amendment 39-23113 (90 FR 40958, August 22, 2025) (AD 2025-17-03).
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2560, Emergency equipment.
This AD was prompted by a report of a corroded emergency sea anchor pin (anchor pin). The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion on the anchor pin. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the anchor pin and release the emergency sea anchor in flight, which could result in damage to the rotors and loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2025-0278R1, dated January 14, 2026 (EASA AD 2025-0278R1).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0278R1 refers to effective dates, this AD requires using the effective dates in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) Where EASA AD 2025-0278R1 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(ii) Where EASA AD 2025-0278R1 refers to July 14, 2025 (the effective date of EASA Emergency AD 2025-0146-E), this AD requires using September 8, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2025-17-03).
(iii) Where EASA AD 2025-0278R1 refers to December 24, 2025 (the effective date of EASA AD 2025-0278), this AD requires using September 8, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2025-17-03).
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0278R1 refers to flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) This AD does not adopt paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2025-0278R1.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0278R1.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0278R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
Special flight permits as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are not allowed.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact David Enns, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4147; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0278R1, dated January 14, 2026.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
In proposed rule document 2026-16314 beginning on page 51611 in the issue of Tuesday, August 11, 2026, make the following corrections:
1. On page 51612, in the first column, the 21st line should read, “September 25, 2026. Public Hearing: The”.
2. On page 51622, the
3. On page 51625, in § 1.128-1, in the third column, the first three lines should read:
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is initiating an environmental impact statement and rulemaking to revise the Forest Service's travel management regulations, 36 CFR part 212. The proposed action would establish a uniform national policy favoring increased access while simplifying regulatory requirements and preserving local decision-making. The proposed access rule would establish a national policy with a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields,
The presumption embodied in the national policy would guide future decisions and would not itself change the legal status of any road, trail, airfield, trailhead, area, or other access route or point. Any change in lawful use resulting from a vehicle- or use-specific exemption would be limited to the scope and conditions expressly provided in the revised regulations. Existing motor vehicle use designations and maps would remain in effect until revised under the amended regulations. The environmental impact statement will evaluate the impacts of the proposed rule revisions and study alternatives for managing public access, including the motorized and other forms of access addressed by the proposed rule, on National Forest System lands in the context of multiple-use resource management. USDA invites written comments on alternatives, effects, and relevant information, studies, or analyses related to the proposal.
Comments must be received in writing by September 23, 2026.
Additional information, including the eventual publication of the environmental impact statement and record of decision, can be found on the following website:
•
•
Jim Bacon, Acting Director, Public Benefits, at the following phone number: 707-562-8856. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, then provide the phone number of the person named as a point of contact for further information.
The Travel Management Rule (TMR), found at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 212, provides the regulatory framework for managing the National Forest System (NFS) transportation system and public motor vehicle use. The rule is organized into subparts A, B, and C.
Most operative provisions now in subpart A predate the 2005 TMR. In 2005, the Forest Service designated existing sections 212.1 through 212.21 as subpart A and revised section 212.1. Subpart A outlines how the Forest Service (Agency) plans, develops, and manages the forest transportation system. It includes definitions, requirements for the transportation program, and specific provisions related to:
• Cooperative work with partners (section 212.3).
• Road construction and maintenance and road system management (sections 212.4 and 212.5).
• Ingress and egress rights, access procurement by the United States, and permission to cross NFS lands and easements (sections 212.6, 212.7, and 212.8).
• Principles for shared use of roads (section 212.9).
• Maximum economy road standards (section 212.10).
• Administration of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (section 212.21).
These provisions establish the access, construction and maintenance, cooperative management, procurement, and fiscal responsibilities necessary for administering the forest transportation system.
Part 295 implemented Executive Orders (E.O.s) 11644 and 11989 by providing for the designation of areas and trails on which off-road vehicle use was allowed, restricted, or prohibited. The 2005 TMR superseded part 295 and established subpart B's unit-wide system of motor vehicle use designations. The 2015 rule revised subpart C to require over-snow vehicle use designations on units with adequate snowfall where such use occurs. Subparts B and C:
• Require each unit to identify NFS roads, NFS trails, and areas on NFS lands that are designated for public motor vehicle use and generally prohibit motor vehicle use outside or inconsistent with those designations (sections 212.50 and 212.80).
• Establish criteria, public input requirements, coordination with governments, and environmental considerations for designations (sections 212.52, 212.53, and 212.55).
• Require publication of designations on motor vehicle use maps and over-snow vehicle use maps (sections 212.51, 212.56, and 212.81).
• Provide direction for revision of designations (section 212.54).
• Provide direction for monitoring effects of motor vehicle use (section 212.57).
Subparts B and C responded to growing off-road vehicle use and the need to protect natural resources from the proliferation of user-created routes and to reduce conflicts among uses. Publication of maps identifying designated roads, trails, and areas inform the public where, when, and which motor vehicle uses were permitted, and helped deter user-created routes and associated adverse environmental impacts.
Since 2005, all but 6 of the 154 national forest units and 20 national grassland units have established motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) designating roads, trails, and areas open to public motor vehicle use. Over-snow vehicle use maps (OSVUMs) have been established on 25 of the estimated 101 units that receive adequate snowfall to warrant over-snow travel management.
The TMR provided a complex procedural framework to counter the proliferation of user-created motor vehicle routes and established an inflexible, nationally-driven framework for designating roads, trails, and areas open or closed to public motor vehicle use. Maps showing these designations
On May 29, 2026, the President signed E.O. 14408,
Under the Secretary's statutory authority to regulate the use and occupancy of NFS lands, including 16 U.S.C. 551, and, as applicable to national grasslands and other lands administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, 7 U.S.C. 1011(f), and in light of the administrative costs and challenges associated with implementing the TMR, and recognizing the policy set forth in E.O. 14408, the Department proposes to revise 36 CFR part 212 and associated provisions in part 261 to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens, establish a modern access and travel-management framework that addresses current needs and changing conditions, and increase public access to NFS lands while retaining legally required protections and building upon the designation and mapping framework established since 2005.
E.O. 14408 states that technological, operational, and land-management developments support replacing the designation criteria derived from E.O.s 11644 and 11989 with a framework grounded in applicable statutory authorities. Conditions within and adjacent to NFS lands also have changed since the prior Executive Orders were issued and the travel management regulations were originally promulgated and revised. These changes include an expanding wildland-urban interface; growing impacts of extreme wildfire, drought, and insect and disease infestations; increasing public recreation and access needs; and changing recreation technology.
Based on the Department's review of past travel management public process comments, lawsuits, and planning implementation timeframes, the Department believes that specified TMR requirements governing designation, minimization, and narrowly defined prohibitions may overlap with requirements imposed by other authorities or may unnecessarily delay some designation revisions. Twenty years of implementation indicate that applying the same TMR-specific procedures to every designation revision, regardless of scale, may impose time and analytical burdens disproportionate to minor or iterative adjustments. The Department therefore is considering a framework that would distinguish clerical corrections and minor designation revisions from more substantive changes while retaining nationally uniform mapping, publication, transition, and enforcement requirements.
E.O. 14408 rescinded E.O.s 11644 and 11989 and directs agencies to rescind or revise regulations previously adopted to implement those Orders. The Department is exercising its independent statutory discretion to determine the most appropriate process for balancing competing values and uses, while ensuring public access to NFS lands within the existing multiple-uses framework.
Exercising its independent statutory authority, the Department proposes to remove the national minimization criteria and establish a nationally applicable access policy under which local officials would make designation and closure decisions based on documented local conditions and needs, subject to applicable law, valid existing rights, and the revised regulations.
Except as expressly identified in the proposed rule, the proposed action would not alter requirements imposed by other statutory authorities for environmental review, public involvement, or administrative review.
The Department proposes to replace the minimization criteria and other identified TMR-specific procedures with an access-oriented framework grounded in applicable statutes, regulations, and the proposed access rule, as follows:
(1) Clarify the relationship between land management planning under the National Forest Management Act and travel management or access decisions under this part. Land management plans establish the broad, integrated framework for managing NFS lands. They do not themselves authorize individual projects or activities. Decisions concerning the designation, management, modification, or discontinuation of particular roads, trails, areas, and classes of motor vehicle use are implementation-level decisions that are appropriately made by responsible officials based on current site-specific conditions and management needs.
(2) Experience implementing the 2005 TMR demonstrates that unnecessarily linking travel management decisions to land management planning can reduce the flexibility necessary to respond to changing access needs, recreation demands, resource conditions, wildfire and other disturbances, public safety concerns, maintenance capabilities, and available funding. Land management plans typically operate over long planning horizons, while transportation systems and public uses may require more timely adjustment.
(3) Accordingly, the proposed rule would acknowledge the need to remain consistent with the National Forest Management Act but would clarify that travel management or access decisions are not land management planning decisions and need not be made through the procedures governing development, amendment, or revision of land management plans, unless a plan amendment or revision is required to resolve inconsistency with an applicable plan component. Within those constraints, responsible officials would retain discretion to make access decisions under this part based on the circumstances presented at the time of the decision.
(4) Travel planning is subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as applicable. For an EIS, USDA's NEPA regulations require analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant effects and provide for the use of design criteria, where appropriate, to avoid or minimize adverse effects (7 CFR 1b.7(h)(5)(i)-(ii), 1b.11(a)(11)-(12)).
(5) Motor vehicle use designations also must comply with other applicable laws, including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, National Trails System Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Wilderness Act. Because land management plans and NEPA do not necessarily supply all of the substantive designation criteria or public-participation procedures currently contained in part 212, the revised regulations would identify the standards and procedures that will govern future designation and closure decisions.
Revisions to 36 CFR parts 212 and 261 are proposed to remove the current minimization criteria and streamline specified process requirements in light of applicable statutory requirements.
Section 212.54 currently applies the public-involvement, governmental-coordination, and designation-criteria requirements in sections 212.52, 212.53, and 212.55 to revisions of motor vehicle use designations, including minor revisions. The proposed access rule will
The proposed access rule would also support implementation of section 127 of the EXPLORE Act, which directs the Secretary to seek to provide publicly available, GIS-compatible motor vehicle use maps for each NFS unit within the statutory timeframe and to update those maps periodically, in accordance with existing law. The EXPLORE Act also directs the Secretary to seek to create additional opportunities, as appropriate and in accordance with existing law, for motorized and non-motorized access and recreation.
The purpose of the proposed action is deregulatory with an intent to modernize the Agency's travel-planning process, making it less burdensome, more efficient and timelier, and more responsive to recreational and other access needs on forests and grasslands across the country. The amended regulations would also support the Administration's focus on increasing access and recreational opportunities on Federal lands.
In addition, the Department seeks to reduce duplication between land management planning, environmental review, and travel planning.
Applicable land management plans and NEPA analysis inform local decisions but do not themselves establish all substantive or procedural standards for motor vehicle use designations. The amended regulations therefore would establish the governing national access and closure criteria and retain uniform mapping, publication, vehicle-class, transition, and enforcement requirements. Within that framework, local managers could update public motor vehicle access more efficiently based on documented local conditions, consistent with applicable law, valid existing rights, and other governing instruments.
The proposed action would establish a new national policy to guide local travel-management decisions, remove the minimization criteria in subparts B and C, revise other identified process requirements, and separately amend subpart A as described below.
Future changes to public access covered by the amended regulations would be governed by the proposed access rule, applicable laws, valid existing rights, other governing instruments, and public participation and governmental coordination requirements identified in the amended rule, Tribal consultation requirements, local access needs, and documented resource and safety considerations. Maps showing designated roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points would continue to be published and periodically updated for each NFS administrative unit.
The proposed regulations would establish a new regulatory framework governing local decision-making. The Department invites public comment on the following components of that framework:
1. The amended regulations would establish a presumption that existing roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points on NFS lands are open to appropriate public use unless closure or restriction is required by applicable law, valid existing rights, or another governing instrument, or is supported by specific, documented and justifiable reasons based on science-based resource conditions, public safety, conflicts among uses, or maintenance and administrative capacity. This presumption would include access along section lines in certain national grasslands in North Dakota. The presumption would not itself establish the existence, ownership, or scope of a public right-of-way or establish Forest Service jurisdiction or legal access. Seasonal restrictions could be applied. The amended regulations would require, subject to available appropriations, an annual unit-level process to identify closed or highly restricted trails, roads, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points that may warrant reconsideration. The responsible official would conduct the review and indicate which routes or access points may be reconsidered for a change in status. A route would be reopened only through the process prescribed by the proposed access rule and only if reopening would be consistent with applicable law, valid existing rights, other governing instruments, available appropriations, and the governing access and closure criteria.
2. The proposed access rule would establish a requirement to consider new roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and other access routes and points where appropriate to increase access. The policy would not itself authorize construction or commit resources and would remain subject to applicable law, valid existing rights, governing instruments, site-specific review, and available appropriations.
3. The proposed regulations would address Forest Service management of NFS airfields and the use of NFS lands for aircraft landing and takeoff. It would identify the regulations and existing airfield or aircraft restrictions proposed for amendment and the criteria and process for opening, restricting, or closing an airfield.
4. The proposed access rule would establish processes and conditions for authorizing limited off-route motor vehicle and other motorized equipment use for, among other things, downed big-game retrieval, firewood collection, dispersed camping, and for designating areas for over-snow and other motorized recreation. The proposed regulations would specify whether each use would be authorized through a route or area designation, a written authorization, or a categorical exemption and would establish applicable geographic, seasonal, vehicle-class, and resource-protection conditions.
The proposed action would separately revise specified portions of subpart A. Specifically, section 212.5(b)(1) would be revised to replace the current minimum-road-system requirement with criteria for determining an adequate and appropriate forest transportation system, including access needs, resource protection, safety, maintenance capacity, and applicable land management plan components. Section 212.1 would be revised to define the vehicle and use categories
The proposed action would add specified categories of exempt vehicles or uses to the designation and prohibition framework in 36 CFR parts 212 and 261 and would revise that framework to accommodate new vehicle types and uses without relying on a binary motorized or nonmotorized classification.
For purposes of the proposal, “class 1 electric bicycle” would have the meaning in 23 U.S.C. 217(j)(2)(A) and (B)(i). The proposed action would exempt class 1 electric bicycles from the motor vehicle use designation requirement in 36 CFR 212.51(a) and the prohibition in 36 CFR 261.13 when operated on an NFS trail where bicycle use is allowed, subject to applicable land management plan direction, seasonal restrictions, orders, and site-specific restrictions adopted by the responsible official under the criteria and procedures in the proposed rule. The EIS would analyze an alternative retaining class 1 e-bikes as motor vehicles subject to motor vehicle use designations and alternatives adopting broader or narrower exemption conditions.
Any additional categorical authorization for low-powered electric mobility devices used by persons with mobility disabilities would be defined by objective criteria in the proposed rule, including the covered devices and the scope and conditions of the authorization, and coordinated with applicable disability-access requirements. Any additional authorization would supplement, and would not limit, existing rights or Agency obligations under applicable disability-access laws. These changes would be evaluated in light of approaches used by other Federal and State land management agencies.
With regard to subparts B and C, the proposed action would establish an access-planning process and would not itself authorize construction or other ground-disturbing activities or projects. The access presumption set forth in the national policy would guide future decisions and would not itself open a currently closed route, airfield, trailhead, or other access point except to the extent that the amended regulations expressly make a specified vehicle- or use-specific exemption self-executing. Existing motor vehicle use designations, including the designations shown on MVUMs and OSVUMs, would remain in effect until revised under the amended regulations. Prohibitions established under other authorities would remain in effect until modified, rescinded, or expired under those authorities.
Future site-specific designation decisions would be made by local officials after analysis and evaluation of land and resource conditions, consistent with applicable law. If the rule removes sections 212.52 and 212.53, it would identify the public involvement, governmental-coordination, and Tribal-consultation requirements that will govern future designation and revision decisions.
In addition to the proposed action, the environmental impact statement (EIS) will analyze a no-action alternative that would retain the TMR in its current form. Known alternatives may include: applying the open-unless-closed presumption prospectively or making specified changes effective upon promulgation; limiting “existing” routes and airfields to features in the forest transportation atlas or using a broader evidentiary definition; retaining selected designation, public-involvement, coordination, or monitoring requirements; streamlining clerical map corrections and minor designation revisions; addressing subpart A separately; retaining class 1 e-bikes as motor vehicles subject to motor vehicle use designations; varying the scope or conditions of vehicle and use exemptions; and adopting different processes or conditions for off-route uses, over-snow travel, and airfields.
The EIS will evaluate the anticipated impacts and benefits, including reasonably foreseeable impacts, related to:
• Public access to NFS lands, including for recreation, to facilitate subsistence or other uses, and to exercise legal rights. Impacts may include changes in access opportunities, use patterns, and conflicts among uses, depending on the transition provisions, exemptions, and later local decisions.
• Forest health and management, including timber management, fuels management, and fire suppression. Impacts may include changes in the timing, cost, and availability of access for management and emergency response.
• Soil, water and air; plant and animal communities, including threatened, endangered, sensitive species; scenic integrity; recreation settings and opportunities; and cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites. Any self-executing vehicle or use exemption could directly affect these resources; other effects would depend on the location, timing, intensity, and conditions of later local decisions.
• Local and regional economies. Impacts may include shifts in recreation-related spending and changes in Agency, applicant, partner, and user costs associated with access decisions, mapping, maintenance, and enforcement.
Administration and management of roads, trails, airfields, trailheads, and areas, including mapping, maintenance, enforcement, annual-review workload, and reliance on existing designations and closures. Impacts may include but are not limited to changes in Agency costs, public notice, user compliance, use conflicts, and maintenance needs. The proposed action would not itself authorize road construction or other ground-disturbing development. Any self-executing vehicle or use exemption would remain subject to otherwise applicable statutory, regulatory, valid existing-rights, and other governing restrictions. The EIS would evaluate the direct programmatic effects of such exemptions at the appropriate scale; effects of later site-specific actions would be evaluated when those actions are proposed.
The level of environmental review of the identified resources for the EIS will be commensurate with the anticipated effects to each resource at the programmatic scale. Because the proposed action does not itself require changes to current motor vehicle use designations or prohibitions, apart from any direct effects of the proposed vehicle or use exemptions, estimating site-specific effects of local changes would be highly speculative. The EIS nevertheless will evaluate the reasonably foreseeable programmatic effects of changing the governing designation criteria, procedures, and exemptions, using available data and reasonable assumptions or scenarios. Effects of any future motor vehicle use designation or prohibition actions will be analyzed at the appropriate scale, where information concerning potential resource impacts can be meaningfully evaluated and weighed.
No anticipated permits or other authorizations are required for this action.
USDA anticipates publishing the proposed rule and draft EIS in spring of 2027 and the completed EIS, record of decision, and final rule in early calendar year 2028. This schedule is subject to change consistent with applicable law.
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency. No cooperating or participating agencies have been designated at this time. The Forest Service does not anticipate designating any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies as cooperating or participating agencies. These organizations are encouraged to provide input through the public comment opportunities for this notice of intent, as well as for the proposed rule and draft EIS.
This notice announces the Agency's preparation of the EIS and requests public input to inform its scope and further development of the policies underlying this action.
USDA will solicit public feedback through the 30-day written-comment period described above. No separate public scoping process or scoping meetings are planned.
The Department is requesting comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and identification of any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the EIS; therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions and recommendations to alleviate these. Lengthy or complex comments are most effective when accompanied by a brief, plainly worded summary of the main points. Comments, including attachments and any personal information provided in your comments, will be posted to the docket unchanged. Do not submit any information you consider to be private, confidential business information, or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
This action is not subject to the pre-decisional administrative review (objection) process of 36 CFR parts 218 or 219 subpart B.
The Forest Service will offer government-to-government consultation to federally recognized Tribes and will engage Alaska Native Corporations consistent with applicable consultation requirements during rulemaking and EIS development.
The responsible official is the Secretary of Agriculture or her designee.
In proposed rule document 2026-16331 beginning on page 51644 in the issue of Tuesday, August 11, 2026, make the following corrections:
1. On page 51644, in the first column, in the last two lines, “August 18, 2026” should read “August 23, 2026”.
2. On the same page, in the second column, in the 24th line from the bottom, “August 8, 2026” should read “August 18, 2026”.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the South Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. The purpose is to discuss the implementation stage and debrief on the testimony as part of their study on Occupational Licensing.
Monday, September 28, 2026, from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be submitted via the following form:
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website,
Ichor Systems, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Austin, Texas within FTZ 183. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 30, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: shutoff or control valves for gas panel of semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment; gas panels for semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment/machines; weldments for gas panels of semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment (vaporizer, gas lines); assembly kits of gas panel for semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment/machines; stainless steel tube/pipe fittings; hand-operated valves for gas panels; parts of hand-operated gas valves for gas panels; other parts of gas valves for gas panels; pressure-reducing valves; gas filtering/purifying machinery; automatic regulating instruments/apparatus; optical fiber cables; parts of filtering/purifying machinery for gas panels; electrical switches installed onto gas panels; stainless steel seamless pipe/tube used for the assembly of gas panels; larger stainless steel seamless pipe/tube (>19mm) used for the assembly of gas panels; flexible tubing of iron or steel used for the assembly of gas panels; stainless steel butt welding fittings used for the assembly of gas panels; rubber hoses reinforced with textile materials used for the assembly of gas panels; stainless steel seamless tubes/pipes used for the assembly of gas panels; smaller stainless steel welded pipe/tube (<1.65mm) used for the assembly of gas panels; insulated electric conductors with connectors used for the assembly of gas panels; ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets used for the assembly of gas panels; electrical plugs or sockets or connectors used for the assembly of gas panels; stainless steel flanges used for the assembly of gas panels; steel springs used for the assembly of gas
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: polymer-based prepared adhesive compound in liquid or paste form used for bonding and sealing semiconductor equipment assemblies and fluid handling hardware; plastic bar (nylon hexago) used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid handling, vacuum processing, or industrial automation applications; rigid polyvinyl chloride plastic pipe or tube used for industrial chemical distribution and process utility systems in semiconductor fabrication facilities; extruded plastic tube, pipe, hose, elbow, coupling, or connector fitting used in semiconductor gas, liquid chemical, or vacuum delivery systems; rigid or flexible polyethylene plastic tubing and hose used for low-pressure chemical and gas transfer applications in semiconductor manufacturing equipment; pressure-sensitive plastic sheet, tape, film, or adhesive-backed material used for insulation, sealing, masking, or protective applications in semiconductor manufacturing; polycarbonate plastics used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid handling, vacuum processing, or industrial automation applications; polyurethane plastics used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid handling, vacuum processing, or industrial automation applications; molded plastic container, bag, tray, cap, closure, or packaging article used for handling, protecting, and transporting semiconductor components and assemblies; molded plastic container, bag, tray, cap, closure, or packaging article of polymers of ethylene used for handling, protecting, and transporting semiconductor components and assemblies; fabricated plastic articles including spacers, retainers, insulators, guards, or protective hardware used in semiconductor process equipment; vulcanized rubber gasket, seal, o-ring, or sealing ring designed for vacuum integrity and chemical containment in semiconductor fluid handling systems; industrial labels used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid handling, vacuum processing, or industrial automation applications; industrial felt (polyester) or nonwoven textile pad used for filtration, insulation, vibration damping, or protective lining in semiconductor manufacturing equipment; technical ceramic tube, insulator, chamber component, or wear-resistant article used in semiconductor process and vacuum systems; deionized water tank used in semiconductor electrical and thermal management applications; fabricated glass or quartz article including windows, covers, shields, or chamber components used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment; fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (electroslag or vacuum arc remelted); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (containing 8percent or more but less than 24 percent by weight of nickel); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies; fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (less than 18mmand containing 8 percent or more but less than 24 percent by weight of nickel); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (18mm or more and containing 8 percent or more but less than 24 percent by weight of nickel); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (containing 8percent or more but less than 24 percent by weight of nickel); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (less than 152.4mm and containing less than 8 percent by weight of nickel); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm > other of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm > of a width of less than 300 mm); fabricated stainless-steel bar, plate, tube, fastener, spring, or structural article used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment assemblies (nickel-alloy); seamless stainless-steel tube or pipe manufactured for high-purity gas, vacuum, and corrosive chemical transfer applications in semiconductor fabrication (of an external diameter of less than 19 mm > other of an external diameter of less than19 mm); seamless stainless-steel tube or pipe manufactured for high-purity gas, vacuum, and corrosive chemical transfer applications in semiconductor fabrication; seamless stainless-steel tube or pipe manufactured for high-purity gas, vacuum, and corrosive chemical transfer applications in semiconductor fabrication (having a wall thickness of 4 mm or more > of alloy steel); stainless steel tube or pipe fitting including elbows, reducers, couplings, tees, or adapters used in semiconductor gas and chemical distribution systems; machined stainless-steel flange with precision sealing surfaces used for connecting semiconductor gas and chemical process piping systems; threaded stainless steel pipe connection fitting for high-purity semiconductor gas and fluid delivery systems; threaded stainless steel pipe connection fitting for high-purity semiconductor gas and fluid delivery systems (spring washers and other lock washers); threaded stainless steel pipe connection fitting for high-purity semiconductor gas and fluid delivery systems (cotters and cotter pins); copper alloy tube or pipe fitting designed for controlled gas, cooling water, or fluid transfer systems in semiconductor equipment; copper screws, pins, and washers used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid handling, vacuum processing, or industrial automation applications; copper screws, pins, and washers used in semiconductor manufacturing, fluid
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 decision requires subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that parts of gas panel for semiconductor device manufacturing, such as mounting brackets, purge assembly, side panels or enclosures; and fabricated aluminum articles including brackets, supports, clamps, shields, or mounting hardware used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from certain countries The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact John Frye at
Niagara Specialty Metals submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Akron, New York within FTZ 23. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 19, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include high speed steel sheets, stainless steel sheets, tool steel sheets, alloy steel cut into shapes per customer specifications, and alloy steel sheets (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include stainless steel slabs, alloy steel slabs, and high speed steel slabs (duty-free).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
In notice document 2026-04516, appearing on pages 11274-11287, in the issue of Monday, March 9, 2026, make the following correction:
On page 11286, in the table, the last row of the table was inadvertently omitted and should read, “Longi Technology SDN”.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold its 161st Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Executive and Budget Standing Committee (SC), and 208th Council meetings to take actions on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The meetings will be held between September 8 and September 17, 2026. For specific times and agendas, see
161st SSC will be held as hybrid meetings for members and the public, with a remote participation option available via Webex. In-person attendance for the 161st SSC meeting will be hosted at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
The Executive and Budget SC will be held as an in-person meeting at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
The 208th Council Meeting will be held by web conference via Webex. The following venues will be host sites for the 208th Council meeting: Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, Hawaii; Tedi of Samoa Building, Suite 208B, Fagatogo Village, American Samoa; Cliff Pointe, 304 W O'Brien Drive, Hagatna, Guam; and BRI Building, Suite 205, Kopa Di Oru St. Garapan, Saipan, CNMI.
Specific information on joining the meetings and connecting to the web conference will be posted on the Council website at
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; phone: (808) 522-8220.
The 161st SSC meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) on September 8, 2026, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on September 9, 2026, and between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. HST on September 10, 2026. The Executive and Budget SC meeting will be held between 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. HST on September 14, 2026. The 208th Council meeting will be held between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on September 15, 2026, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on September 16, 2026, and between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. HST on September 17, 2026. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items will be held between 4:30 p.m. and 5 p.m. HST on September 15, 2026.
Background documents for the 208th Council meeting will be available at
Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions that may result in Council transmittal of a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council and its advisory bodies will hear recommendations from Council advisors. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
This meeting will be recorded (audio only) for the purposes of generating the minutes of the meeting. As public comments will be made publicly available, participants and public commenters are urged not to provide personally identifiable information at this meeting. Participation in the meeting by web conference, or by telephone, constitutes consent to the audio recording.
Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion during its 208th meeting. However, Council final decisions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) and its advisory bodies will meet September 16-21, 2026, in Vancouver, Washington and via webinar. The Pacific Council meeting will be live streamed with the opportunity to provide public comment remotely. The following groups will meet in person in Vancouver: Pacific Council, Budget Committee, Scientific and Statistical Committee, Habitat Committee, Enforcement Consultants, Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel, and Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team.
The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Friday, September 18, 2026, at 9 a.m. Pacific Time (PT), reconvening at 8 a.m. on Saturday, September 19 through Monday, September 21, 2026. All meetings are open to the public, except for a Closed Session held from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., Friday, September 18, 2026, to address membership appointments, litigation, and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business. Advisory Body meetings begin on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, as outlined in the schedule of ancillary meetings below.
Meetings of the Pacific Council and its advisory entities will be held at the Hilton Vancouver Washington, 301 W. 6th Street, Vancouver, WA, 98660; Telephone: 360-993-4500. Specific meeting information, including directions to join the meeting, connecting to the live stream broadcast, and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Mr. Merrick Burden, Executive Director, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2418 or (866) 806-7204 ext. 418 toll-free.
The September 16-21, 2026, meeting of the Pacific Council will be streamed live on the internet. The broadcasts begin initially at 9 a.m. PT Friday, September 18, 2026, and 8 a.m. Saturday, September 19, 2026, through Monday, September 21, 2026. Broadcasts end when business for the day is complete. Only the audio portion and presentations displayed on the screen at the Pacific Council meeting will be broadcast. The audio portion for the public is listen-only except that an opportunity for oral public comment will be provided prior to Council Action on each agenda item. Additional information and instructions on joining or listening to the meeting can be found on the Pacific Council's website (see
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order. Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions requiring the Pacific Council to transmit a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Additional detail on agenda items, Council action, and advisory entity meeting times are described in Agenda Item A.4, Proposed Council Meeting Agenda, and will be in the advance September 2026 briefing materials and posted on the Pacific Council website at
Advisory body agendas will include discussions of relevant issues that are on the Pacific Council agenda for this meeting and may also include issues that may be relevant to future Pacific Council meetings. Proposed advisory body agendas for this meeting will be available on the Pacific Council website,
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Hayden York (
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification; call for nominations.
NOAA is soliciting nominations for a resident of Alaska to serve as a United States Commissioner to the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). This action is necessary to ensure that the interests of the United States and all of its stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fishery are adequately represented. The intended effect of this solicitation is to ensure stakeholder participation in the process of filling a vacant Commissioner position.
Nominations must be received by September 14, 2026.
Nominations to be a U.S. Commissioner to the IPHC should be made in writing to Doug Duncan, Sustainable Fisheries Division, National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668. Nominations can also be submitted via email to the contact listed below.
Doug Duncan,
The IPHC is a bilateral regional fishery management organization established pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The Convention was signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979. The Convention's central objective is to develop the stocks of Pacific halibut in waters off the west coasts of Canada and the United States to levels that will permit the optimum yield from the Pacific halibut fishery and to maintain the stocks at those levels. The IPHC fulfills this objective in part by recommending Pacific halibut fishery conservation and management measures for approval by the United States and Canada. Pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, conservation and management measures recommended by the IPHC (16 U.S.C. 773b). Measures accepted by the Secretary of State are adopted as binding regulations governing fishing for Pacific halibut in Convention waters of the United States (16 U.S.C. 773c(b)(1)). More information on the IPHC can be found at
The Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773a) requires that the United States be represented on the IPHC by three U.S. Commissioners. U.S. Commissioners are appointed for a term not to exceed 2 years but are eligible for reappointment. Of the Commissioners:
(1) One shall be a NOAA official; and
(2) Two shall be knowledgeable or experienced concerning the Northern Pacific halibut fishery; of these, one shall be a resident of Alaska and the other shall be a nonresident of Alaska.
Of the three commissioners described in paragraphs (1) and (2), one shall be a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Commissioners who are not Federal employees are not considered to be Federal employees except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in section 8101
In their official IPHC duties, Commissioners represent the interests of the United States and all of its stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fisheries. These duties require a modest amount of travel (typically two or three trips per year lasting less than a week), and necessary travel expenses are paid by the U.S. Department of State. Commissioners receive no compensation for their services.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is currently accepting nominations for Alaska residents who are not NOAA officials and who meet the criteria in the
Nomination packages should provide details of an individual's knowledge and experience in the Pacific halibut fishery. Examples of such knowledge and/or experience could include (but are not limited to) such activities as: participation in commercial, tribal, Community Development Quota, subsistence, and/or sport and charter boat halibut fishing operations; participation in halibut processing operations; and participation in Pacific halibut management activities. Although nominees do not need to have connections to any particular sector or interest in the Pacific halibut fishery, the Department of Commerce seeks to maintain a balance in background among U.S. Commissioners to IPHC to ensure that the interests of commercial, recreational, charter, subsistence, and other users are well represented.
Nomination packages must include a resume that documents an individual's qualifications and State of residence. Self-nominations are acceptable, and former IPHC Commissioners are eligible for reappointment. Letters of recommendation are useful but not required. Nomination packages will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by officials in the Department of Commerce who are familiar with the duties and responsibilities of IPHC Commissioners. Evaluations will consider the extent of an individual's experience and knowledge of the Pacific halibut fishery, residency requirements, and any letters of recommendation provided.
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Rescindment of a system of records notice (SORN).
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the DCSA is providing notice to rescind a system of records Applicants Records, V4-04. This system of records was established to manage the identification and eligibility determinations of unsolicited applicants for agency positions. This record is now consolidated under the Defense Human Resources Management System (DHRMS), DHRA 23 DoD.
The rescindment of this SORN is effective August 24, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by either of the following methods:
*
*
Mr. Charles D. Watters, Director, Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Freedom of Information Office, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA 16018,
The DCSA system of records Applicants Records, V4-04 (July 14, 1999; 64 FR 37935) was established to track unsolicited applicants and determination of eligibility for positions with the agency. The DCSA is rescinding V4-04 because the records are covered under the DHRMS, DHRA 23 DoD (September 23, 2024; 89 FR 77497).
DoD SORNs have been published in the
Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined as a U.S. citizen or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoD has provided a report of this SORN to OMB and Congress.
Applicants Records, V4-04
July 14, 1999; 64 FR 37935
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of Special Needs, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 03G15, Military Community Family Policy, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Kevin Hamilton, 571-726-5914.
The sponsor or family member completes the demographics section on both collections, a qualified medical provider completes the medical summary on DD 2792, and the special education or early intervention staff completes the early intervention/special education summary of the DD 2792-1. On the DD 2792, the sponsor or family member provides authorization for disclosure of the medical information and certifies the accuracy of the information. On DD 2792-1, the sponsor or family member authorizes the release of information.
The information is provided to EFMP medical personnel for enrollment in the program, and both medical and educational screening personnel for their determination of the availability of medical and education resources necessary to meet the family member's needs. The medical and/or educational recommendation is supplied to the appropriate Military Department's personnel department in determining the future assignment for the service member.
This information collection may also be used to identify available medical and educational resources to DoD civilian employees who are considering a job overseas to assist them in deciding whether to relocate overseas with a family member who has special medical or educational needs.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to OPNAV Forms/Information Collections Office (DNS-14), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E563, Washington, DC 20350-2000, ATTN: Ms. Ashley Alford, or call 703-614-7585.
CHINFO uses the quantitative data collected quarterly from representative online panels to evaluate public knowledge, favorability, capability perception, and engagement with the Navy. These insights allow CHINFO to adjust its public communication efforts, address areas of low awareness or misunderstanding, and brief senior leaders on national sentiment regarding defense capabilities, spending, and emerging threats.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 23, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to: Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, Box 16, Yorktown Avenue, Building 110, Door 12, Code 74400, ATTN: Jason R. Raymond, Jacksonville, FL 32212-0012, or call 904-790-6251.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, September 23, 2026; 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. MDT.
Holiday Inn & Suites, 3005 South Fork Boulevard, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402. This meeting will be open to the public in-person at the Holiday Inn & Suites and virtually via Zoom. To attend virtually, please contact Cecelia Hruska, ICP Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) Administrator, by email at
Cecelia Hruska, ICP CAB Administrator, by email at
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/livestreamed meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, September 17, 2026; 5:30-7 p.m. CDT.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College (WKCTC), Emerging Technology Center, Room 215, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. This meeting will be held in-person at the WKCTC Emerging Technology Center, Room 215 and livestreamed. The meeting will be streamed on YouTube at
Zachary Boyarski by Phone: (270) 441-6812 or Email:
Take notice that on August 12, 2026, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural) and Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Horizon), 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918, filed a joint application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its North Extension Project (Project). The Project consists of the construction and operation of: (i) a new 11,107 horsepower (HP) compressor station (CS), CS 119, in Lake County, Illinois; (ii) a new 31,900 HP compression unit and re-wheeling of the existing compressor unit 1 at the existing CS 312 in Livington County, Illinois; (iii) a new 11,107 HP compressor unit at CS 113 in Will County, Illinois; (iv) a new pipeline lateral consisting of approximately 11.5 miles of pipeline starting in Lake County, Illinois and ending in Kenosha County, Wisconsin; and (v) a new meter station at the terminus of the lateral, and various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities. Natural is also seeking authorization to lease the capacity created by the Project on Horizon's interstate natural gas pipeline system. Concurrently, Horizon is seeking authorization related to the lease of capacity to Natural. The Project will allow Natural to provide 185,000 dekatherms per day of incremental, firm transportation service to meet the growing demands of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company in southern Wisconsin. Natural estimates the cost of the Project to be $438,467,975 and proposes an incremental recourse rate under Natural's Rate Schedule FTS for firm transportation service on the Project facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, Kinder Morgan, Inc., as Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 2 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, by phone at (719) 667-7515, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Natural and Horizon stated that a water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. When available, Natural should submit to the Commission a copy of the request for certification for the Commission authorization, including the date the request was submitted to the certifying agency, and either (1) a copy of the certifying agency's decision or (2) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 9, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 9, 2026.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-564-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-564-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-564-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-564-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, Kinder Morgan, Inc., as Operator of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 2 North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
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
On August 12, 2026, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Bangor-Pacific Hydro Associates, in conjunction with the above captioned project on August 6, 2026. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If Maine DEP fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Exempt Wholesale Generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“EXIM”) has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million. Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the EXIM Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2026 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of EXIM.
Comments may be submitted through
To the extent that EXIM is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to be used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“EXIM”) has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million. Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the EXIM Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2026 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of EXIM.
Comments may be submitted through
To the extent that EXIM is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to be used to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before September 23, 2026.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
The Report and Order adopted the governmentwide Office of Management and Budget Governmentwide Guidelines on Debarment and Suspension, as well as supplemental rules tailored to the FCC's programs. To promote transparency and safeguard these critical programs from waste, fraud, and abuse, the Report and Order implements, in pertinent part, several reporting and third-party disclosure requirements consistent with the OMB Guidelines.
These new rules are new information collection requirements which are as follows:
a.
Additionally, pursuant to 2 CFR 180.335 and 2 CFR 6001.335, if no disclosures are required, participants must so certify under penalty of perjury that no disclosures are required under the suspension and debarment rules. We anticipate that these “no response required” certifications will be included on existing forms for each program (as described in subparts (e) through (k) below).
b.
c.
d.
To monitor compliance with the suspension and debarment rules, under 2 CFR 6001.435, the Commission may require program participants to provide an assurance or certify their compliance with the rules at the time they apply for funding or request disbursements from Commission programs (as a condition of participation). For the programs listed below, the Commission will require certifications and collect them through existing FCC forms which are already submitted by program participants as described below.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
To monitor compliance under section 6001.435 of the Commission's rules, TRS providers participating in the TRS program will be required to provide an assurance or certify that they complied with section 6001.435 when they file their application each year. Likewise, unless required to file an affirmative disclosure pursuant to section 6001.335, participants will
k.
To monitor compliance under section 6001.435 of the Commission's rules, NDBEDP providers participating in the NDBEDP program will be required to provide an assurance or certify that they complied with section 6001.435 when they file their application each year. Likewise, unless required to file an affirmative disclosure pursuant to section 6001.335, participants will be required to certify that no response pursuant to section 6001.335 was required. In addition, NDBEDP providers will be required to certify that
For all of the programs discussed above, the information collected by the Commission will be used by agency staff and the program administrators that organize the day-to-day operations of the covered programs under the agency's supervision to monitor compliance with program rules, better detect waste, fraud, and abuse in Commission programs, and ensure bad actors are not able to participate in covered transactions from the outset. Given requirements to disclose information to other primary and lower tier participants, these requirements will also help inform more financially responsible decisions by those participating in Commission programs.
Specifically, under 2 CFR 6001.120, the notification that a program participant is currently or has been previously excluded by another agency will ensure Commission staff responsible for entering into new covered transactions and approving applications will not distribute federal funds to participants that are presently excluded, and therefore, ineligible. Likewise, the disclosure of past misconduct will provide agency staff with pertinent information to consider when evaluating whether to approve or reject new requests for funding. This information is critical to ensuring that the federal government is only conducting business with participants that are presently responsible and do not negatively affect the public interest. Failure to submit accurate disclosures may also be grounds for additional administrative action, including, but not limited to, suspension and debarment.
Similarly, certifications are one of the primary mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the regulatory framework. Compliance with the suspension and debarment rules are conditions of receiving payment from Commission programs. These certifications from program participants allow Commission staff that administer the covered programs and process applications to quickly determine whether participants have satisfied the conditions precedent before distributing federal funds. In turn, the certifications required by program participants of downstream participants will also allow the people who conduct business directly with the government to ensure that their other business relationships are compliant with the suspension and debarment rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
In this document, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) seek comment on proposing to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously authorized equipment that has been determined to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of United States persons. Through this
Comments are due on or before September 23, 2026.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 26-184, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
•
Matthew Chai, Attorney Advisor, Operations and Emergency Management Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1112 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document (
In October 2025, the Commission adopted the
On December 22, 2025, PSHSB added all UAS and UAS critical components produced in a foreign country to the Covered List, and all communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, to the Covered List. These additions were based on a National Security Determination from an Executive Branch interagency body, including several appropriate national security agencies, determining (among other things) that such equipment and services pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and to the safety and security of United States persons.
On May 8, 2026, the Enforcement Bureau opened an investigation and issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Anzu, a United States-based UAS company, based on publicly available information that Anzu was producing devices listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA. On July 9, 2026, Anzu responded to the LOI in a confidential filing. Public sources suggest that Anzu devices are produced by an entity with a technology sharing or licensing agreement with an entity named in section 1709 and thus are considered covered equipment. Anzu's UAS and UAS controllers would also be covered equipment because they are produced in Malaysia, a foreign country.
Pursuant to § 2.939(e), PSHSB and OET propose to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of certain previously-authorized covered equipment referenced above. We tentatively conclude that such equipment is covered equipment. Specifically, we propose to apply these prohibitions to the following covered equipment: communications and video surveillance equipment listed in section 1709 produced by Anzu, including FCC IDs 2BBYS-RAPTOR and 2BBYS-RRC01. As stated above, public reporting indicates that this equipment is listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA, because it is produced by an entity with a technology licensing or sharing agreement with an entity named in section 1709 and because the equipment is produced in a foreign country.
This proposed prohibition would not apply to any other already-authorized covered equipment. It also would not apply to importation or marketing for federal government use or for commercial testing and product development, and would not affect the continued use or operation of already-purchased equipment.
We seek comment on our tentative conclusions that the above-referenced equipment is covered equipment. We invite commenters to provide specific evidence in response to our tentative conclusions. Below, we provide a brief analysis of the relevant factors that would justify limitation on the authorization of previously authorized “covered” equipment and tentatively conclude that prohibiting the continued importation and marketing of this previously authorized covered equipment serves the public interest.
An Executive Branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise, including appropriate national security agencies, one of whom was the DoW, specifically determined that UAS and UAS critical components produced in foreign countries and communications and video surveillance equipment and services listed in section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA “pose unacceptable risks to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of United States persons.” This determination of “unacceptable risks” was based on an assessment of “threats from unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, supply chain vulnerabilities, and other potential threats to the homeland.” We believe this determination included all already-authorized covered equipment described in this
Therefore, based on the
We tentatively conclude that our proposed action would not have substantial economic and supply chain impacts, especially given that the devices subject to the proposed limitation appear to comprise a very small share of the market. Anzu does not appear in major industry market analyses or rankings. Do commenters agree that economic and supply chain impacts are relatively minor? Could other equipment fill any gaps that may be created by this proposed prohibition? Has the Conditional Approval process provided an adequate source for trusted equipment now or in the future? Would this proposal be cost-effective for the public in terms of obtaining trusted equipment? Would providers' compliance costs decrease as they replace covered equipment with trusted equipment? We strongly encourage commenters to supply data and other specific evidence of economic costs to this prohibition.
We seek comment on any economic benefits that may arise as a result of these prohibitions. Following the initial update to the Covered List, billions of dollars have been raised by domestic UAS producers, creating thousands of United States manufacturing jobs. Billions more have been committed for domestic production of UAS and UAS critical components. These investments include capital from domestic investors as well as foreign investors supporting United States manufacturing. We tentatively conclude that if the proposed prohibitions generated economic harm by noticeably reducing supply, such prohibition would spur investments in domestic production that would generate a countervailing positive economic impact. Do commenters agree? We seek comment on the economic effects of the likely investment in United States production that this proposed prohibition would yield.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing a publication containing modifications the Agency is making to the list of standards FDA recognizes for use in premarket reviews (FDA Recognized Consensus Standards). This publication, entitled “Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 066” (Recognition List Number: 066), will assist manufacturers who elect to declare conformity with consensus standards to meet certain requirements for medical devices.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice at any time. These modifications to the list of recognized standards are applicable August 24, 2026.
You may submit comments on the current list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
An electronic copy of Recognition List Number: 066 is available on the internet at
Terry Woods, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5612, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2503,
Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 514 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions or other requirements.
In the
These notices describe the addition, withdrawal, and revision of certain standards recognized by FDA. The Agency maintains on its website HTML and PDF versions of the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards, available at
FDA is announcing the addition, withdrawal, correction, and revision of certain consensus standards the Agency is recognizing for use in premarket submissions and other requirements for devices. FDA is incorporating these modifications to the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in the Agency's searchable database. FDA is using the term “Recognition List Number: 066” to identify the current modifications.
In table 1, FDA describes the following modifications: (1) the withdrawal of standards and their replacement by others, if applicable; (2) the correction of errors made by FDA in listing previously recognized standards; and (3) the changes to the supplementary information sheets of recognized standards that describe revisions to the applicability of the standards.
In section III of this notice, FDA lists modifications the Agency is making that involve new entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 066.
In table 2, FDA provides the listing of new entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 066. These entries are of standards not previously recognized by FDA.
FDA maintains the current list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in a searchable database that may be accessed at
Any person may recommend consensus standards as candidates for recognition under section 514 of the FD&C Act by submitting such recommendations, with reasons for the recommendation, to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry titled “Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence.” This guidance explains FDA's thinking on therapeutic equivalence evaluations and therapeutic equivalence codes (TE codes). FDA's therapeutic equivalence evaluations are listed for multisource prescription drug products approved under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in the active section of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations” (commonly known as the Orange Book). These therapeutic equivalence evaluations have been prepared to serve as public information and advice to state health agencies, prescribers, and pharmacists to promote public education in the area of drug product selection and to foster containment of health care costs. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same title issued in July 2022.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Jonathan Hughes, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, 240-702-3970,
FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry titled “Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence.” This guidance explains FDA's current thinking on therapeutic equivalence evaluations, including the assignment of TE codes, and addresses frequently asked questions regarding therapeutic equivalence. FDA's therapeutic equivalence evaluations are listed for multisource prescription drug products approved under the FD&C Act in the Active section of the Orange Book. As FDA explained when it first proposed to make available a list of all approved drug products, together with therapeutic evaluations of listed products that are available from more than one manufacturer, therapeutic equivalence evaluations have been prepared to serve as public information and advice to state health agencies, prescribers, and pharmacists to promote public education in the area of drug product selection and to foster containment of health care costs (see,
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance titled “Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence” issued on July 21, 2022 (87 FR 43529). FDA considered comments received on the draft guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the final guidance include revisions to reflect an additional process by which applicants of certain 505(b)(2) applications may request TE codes. In addition, minor changes were made to improve clarity and to update the guidance.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Evaluation of Therapeutic Equivalence.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR 10.30 relating to the submission of a citizen petition have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0191. The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 relating to the content and format requirements of labeling for prescription drug products have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 relating to the content and format of new drug applications and abbreviated new drug applications, including the results of safety and effectiveness studies, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The draft guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Submit either electronic or written comments on these draft guidances by October 23, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on these draft guidances before it begins work on the final version of these guidances.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4714, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3400,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While these guidances contain no collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs,
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; request for information.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department), in support of the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines and in furtherance of the Executive Order of August 10, 2026, “Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans,” seeks public comment on whether the categories currently used in Federal vaccine recommendations are adequate. Those categories are routine (universal) recommendations, risk-based recommendations, and recommendations based on shared clinical decision-making, also referred to as individual-based decision-making. The Department seeks comment on these categories and whether additional or different categories should be adopted. The Department further seeks comment on the considerations that should be relied upon in setting vaccine recommendations, including the availability and strength of available scientific evidence, the appropriate approach when randomized controlled trial evidence is limited or absent, a presumption in favor of individual autonomy and religious freedom, the downstream legal and programmatic consequences of category assignment, and the communication practices necessary to earn and maintain public trust.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at the address provided below no later than September 20, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments identified by Docket No. HHS-OS-2026-0332 by either of the following methods: (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Cynthia Goss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (Health Policy), Performing the Delegable Duties of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, (202) 690-7858 or by email at:
Federal vaccine recommendations are developed principally through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and are reflected in the child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules. Current recommendations fall into three principal categories. Under a
ACIP adopted the SCDM terminology in 2019, replacing the earlier “Category A”/“Category B” (permissive) framework. It applies the category through an Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) framework, adopted in 2018, that contemplates three outcomes: a recommendation for all persons in an age or risk group; a recommendation for individuals based on shared clinical decision-making; or no recommendation.
On August 14, 2025, the Secretary reinstated the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, a statutory body established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-27) and charged with securing safer childhood vaccines and improved adverse-event surveillance and research.
On August 10, 2026, the President signed the Executive Order “Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans.”
The SCDM category was created to clarify the intent of the former permissive “Category B” recommendations, which survey evidence indicated were poorly understood. In a 2018 national survey of pediatric primary care providers, only 24 percent could accurately define a Category B recommendation; a majority did not know that such vaccines are covered by private insurance or the Vaccines for Children program; and providers were divided on whether the permissive category should be retained, with 39 percent valuing the leeway it provided and 22 percent favoring its elimination.
Experience with SCDM since 2019 has been mixed, and the Department is aware of both criticisms and defenses of the category. In a national survey of physicians published in 2021, approximately 90 to 95 percent reported that implementing SCDM recommendations requires more time than routine recommendations; fewer than half knew that SCDM vaccines are covered by insurance; many reported that electronic health record and immunization forecasting tools displayed SCDM recommendations inaccurately or not at all; and most agreed that SCDM recommendations create confusion for patients.
At the same time, surveyed physicians have expressed support for the existence of an SCDM category for appropriate vaccines, and commenters have defended SCDM as sound, patient-centered clinical practice for vaccines whose benefit-risk balance varies meaningfully with individual circumstances, whose population-level benefit is less clear, or for which the evidence base is limited or evolving.
The Department seeks information on how the category is understood and applied in practice, whether its risks and benefits have been adequately characterized, and how it could be improved.
The durability of any vaccine recommendation framework depends on the public's trust in the process that produces it. Trust is essential both to public health objectives and to effective, informed individual choice. Several bodies of evidence inform the Department's thinking.
The Federal COVID-19 vaccination effort shows both the value of calibrating recommendations to the underlying evidence and the cost of departing from that calibration. Operation Warp Speed produced safe and effective vaccines in record time, with first doses administered in December 2020, less than a year after the virus was sequenced. Executive Order 13962 directed that Americans have priority access to those vaccines and framed vaccination as available to “all Americans who choose to be vaccinated,” and the initial allocation framework directed limited early supply to those at highest risk of severe disease and exposure.
The process by which recommendations are finalized matters as well. In September 2021, ACIP voted against recommending COVID-19 booster doses for adults aged 18 to 64 on the basis of occupational or institutional exposure. Members opposing the recommendation argued that such decisions were better left to individual benefit-risk judgment. The CDC Director set that vote aside and extended the recommendation to the occupational group, a departure from the committee's judgment that was widely reported as extraordinary.
The Department notes that the empirical literature is mixed. Other rigorous studies found that mandate and certification policies measurably increased vaccine uptake in several countries, particularly where baseline uptake was low, and one multi-study United States analysis found that requirements strengthened rather than weakened vaccination intentions.
The Department seeks comment from the public, including parents and patients; clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other immunization providers; State, Tribal, local, and territorial health officials; health plans and issuers; researchers in medicine, public health, ethics, law, communication science, and decision science; faith communities; manufacturers; and professional, civil-society, and community-based organizations. Commenters need not address every question. Supporting data, citations, and concrete examples are encouraged.
1. Are the current categories (routine, risk-based, and shared clinical decision-making/individual-based decision-making) adequate, clear, and well understood by clinicians, patients, and parents? What evidence bears on how each category is understood in practice?
2. Do the current categories convey meaningful differences in the strength of the evidence, the magnitude of individual and population benefit, and the room left for individual circumstances and values? If not, how should those differences be conveyed?
3. Do the current categories unintentionally imply that parental permission, individual consent, or meaningful clinical discussion applies only to shared clinical decision-making recommendations? Should the framework expressly distinguish the strength of a Federal recommendation from the consent, parental-permission, and assent processes involved in administering a vaccine?
4. Should additional or different categories be adopted, such as “recommended, but not during infancy” (or otherwise age-de-emphasized recommendations); “recommended with qualification”; or “shared clinical decision-making with qualification”? For any proposed category, describe its definition, its default (if any), its evidentiary basis, and its intended downstream consequences.
5. What can be learned from the recommendation structures of peer bodies abroad, such as global or
6. If new categories were adopted, what is needed to preserve access to vaccines currently available to Americans and ensure predictable and consistent treatment under coverage requirements, program eligibility rules, the injury-compensation programs, and State law?
7. If categories remain the same, what modifications to timing and frequency of vaccine administration (for example, clearer presentation of flexible age ranges such as the 12-through-15-month window for the first dose of measles-containing vaccine) or guidance on administering vaccines individually versus at a single visit would help parents and clinicians understand that a vaccine is recommended while affording flexibility in timing of administration?
8. What does, or what should, “shared clinical decision-making” mean in the vaccination context? How, if at all, does “individual-based decision-making” differ?
9. Does the term “shared clinical decision-making” create an unintended contrast with routine recommendations? Since shared decision-making describes a clinical process applicable to all vaccine decisions, should the Department reserve that phrase for use across all categories and instead adopt “conditional recommendation” or “recommendation based on individualized assessment” for recommendations whose expected benefit varies materially among individuals?
10. What are the benefits of an SCDM category, including respect for autonomy, informed consent, religious conviction, and individualized clinical judgment, and what evidence supports them?
11. What are the risks of an SCDM category, including confusion, reduced access or uptake, and time burdens in practice, and what evidence supports them?
12. An SCDM recommendation, once adopted by the CDC Director, triggers the same coverage requirements as a routine recommendation, including coverage without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act and availability through the Vaccines for Children program. Given evidence that patients and even providers may not understand this, what steps should the Department take to educate the public and the provider community that SCDM-recommended vaccines are covered? What communication formats would most effectively ensure that an SCDM designation is not misread as a lapse in coverage or a signal that a vaccine is unavailable?
13. What supports would make SCDM work as intended, such as decision aids, provider training, documentation standards, coverage clarifications, or category-specific communication materials, and who should develop them?
14. What considerations should be relied upon in establishing vaccine recommendations and assigning categories, and under what conditions should each predominate? Commenters are specifically invited to address the availability, quality, and strength of evidence; the appropriate approach where randomized controlled trial evidence is absent, infeasible, or unethical to obtain; disease severity and epidemiology; individual versus population benefit; a presumption in favor of individual autonomy, informed consent, and religious freedom; and feasibility and programmatic consequences.
15. When evidence is limited, uncertain, or evolving, how should that uncertainty be reflected in the recommendation itself, whether through category assignment, qualifying language, sunset or re-review provisions, or explicit statements of evidentiary certainty, rather than resolved silently in favor of either a universal recommendation or no recommendation?
16. What does the evidence show about the effects of mandates and other compulsory or high-pressure approaches on public trust, vaccine confidence, and long-run vaccination behavior? How should Federal recommendation policy account for those effects, consistent with the principle that Federal recommendations are not mandates?
17. What communication practices should accompany vaccine recommendations so that they earn and keep public trust, and what lessons from COVID-19-era communication should inform them?
18. How should the Department measure whether a recommendation framework is succeeding, and what data should be collected and published for that purpose?
This request for information does not constitute a rule, a proposed rule, or a recommendation, and it does not alter any existing vaccine recommendation, coverage requirement, or program obligation. The Department will not respond individually to comments but will consider them in the work described above.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) seeks research co-development partners and/or licensees for a collection of T cell receptors (TCRs) that specifically target HPV 6 or HPV 11 antigens.
Inquiries related to this license opportunity should be directed to Suna Gulay French Ph.D., Technology Transfer Manager, NCI, Technology Transfer Center, Email:
Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis (RRP) and anogenital condyloma arise from chronic infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) 6 or 11. They can cause significant morbidity due to persistent papillomatous growths in the upper aerodigestive or anogenital tract. In RRP, lesions may obstruct the airway (leading to dysphonia), dyspnea, recurrent pneumonia, or pulmonary failure. In rare cases, it may progress to malignancy. Current treatment options for RRP include zopapogene imadenovec (Papzimeos), systemic bevacizumab, and repeated surgical debulking. Papzimeos can lead to durable responses in some patients but remains ineffective against pulmonary disease. Systemic bevacizumab can control disease, but prolonged use can lead to intolerable toxicities. Repeat surgical debulking causes cumulative surgical and anesthetic risks. Therefore, there remains a critical unmet need for
Researchers at the NCI identified several T cell receptors (TCRs) with potential utility in adoptive cell therapy and other TCR-based approaches to treat HPV 6- or HPV 11-associated diseases—including RRP. These TCRs used engineered T cells derived from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), an easily accessible source of human immune cells. The engineered T cells demonstrated reproducible, antigen-specific recognition of multiple HPV 6 and HPV 11 proteins presented by diverse HLA class I subtypes. The inventors further showed that these TCR-engineered T cells effectively eliminated HPV 6/11-infected target cells. Such results support the therapeutic potential of these TCRs for HPV-associated disease. The intellectual property rights have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
“This Notice is in accordance with 37 CFR 404.4 Authority to grant licenses.”
• Treatment and diagnosis of recurrent RRP and other premalignant and nonmalignant conditions.
○ Adoptive cell therapy.
○ TCR-based therapy.
○ Combination therapy.
• Treatment and diagnosis of additional HPV 6- or HPV 11-associated diseases and chronic infections.
○ Adoptive cell therapy.
○ TCR-based therapy.
○ Combination therapy.
• Novel adoptive cell therapies, either as monotherapies or in combination with other therapeutic modalities.
• Promising freedom to practice as part of a comprehensive intellectual property portfolio for RRP therapeutics and diagnostics.
• Established FDA regulatory precedent for TCR-based therapeutics.
• Opportunity to qualify for regulatory incentives for rare diseases, including: orphan drug designation, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of draft Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 02-99, Change 1, Guidance on the Streamlined Inspection Program. NVIC 02-99, Change 1 would modernize the program guidance to reflect industry advancements in digital recordkeeping, maintenance management systems, and third-party auditing. This update would emphasize a risk-based verification model that reduces redundant physical inspections, broadens acceptable compliance formats, and provides updated procedures for deficiency management and temporary hull repairs.
Comments must be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2026-0041 at
For information about this document call or email LCDR Samuel Rodriguez, Coast Guard; telephone 571-608-7959, email
We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the draft NVIC 02-99, Change 1 Guidance on the Streamlined Inspection Program. We will consider all submissions provided by the deadline and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
The Coast Guard is making available for comment a draft Change 1 to NVIC 02-99, Guidance on the Streamlined Inspection Program. Originally published in 1999, the Streamlined Inspection Program (SIP) provides an alternative, company-managed process for ensuring compliance with vessel inspection regulations. Since its inception, the maritime industry has modernized, increasingly relying on digital compliance systems, robust safety management systems, and third-party audits.
This updated draft guidance would modernize the SIP to align with these industry advancements. The draft NVIC
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 46 U.S.C. 3103 and 3306; 46 CFR part 8, subpart E; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(92).
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Committee management; notice of federal advisory committee establishment.
The Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, through the U.S. Coast Guard, is establishing the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Board of Visitors (Board) as a federal advisory committee. The Board shall review and make recommendations on the operation of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Michael Miron, Committee Management Officer,
Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 1903, the Board shall review and make recommendations on the operation of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. The Board is governed by the provisions of the
A. The membership of the Board shall consist of the following:
a. The chairperson of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, or a member of such Committee designated by such chairperson.
b. Two Senators appointed by the Vice President, each of whom shall be selected from among the members of the Committee on the Appropriations of the Senate.
c. Three Senators appointed by the Vice President.
d. The chairperson of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, or a member of such Committee designated by such chairperson.
e. Two members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall be elected from among the members of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
f. Four Members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House Representatives.
g. Six individuals designated by the President. If not a Regular Government Employee, these six individuals will be appointed as Special Government Employees representing the general public unless designated by the President to provide the Board with points of views of the nongovernment entity or group of persons they are designated to represent. An individual designated to represent the viewpoints of a non-government entity or group would be appointed as a representative.
B. Timing of appointments of members:
a.
b.
c.
d.
A.
B. The Commandant of the Coast Guard (hereafter “Commandant”) shall invite each member of the Board and any staff designated to visit the Coast Guard Academy at least once annually to review the operation of the Academy. With the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter “the Secretary”), the Board, or any members of the Board in connection with the duties of the Board, may make visits to the Academy in connection with the duties of the Board or consult with the Superintendent of the Academy or the faculty, staff, or cadets of the Academy.
C. Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Board conducts a meeting, the Commandant, in consultation with the Board, shall submit a report on the actions of the Board during the meeting and the recommendation of the Board pertaining to the Academy to the Secretary; the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives. The Board shall publish their reports on a publicly accessible Coast Guard website.
The duties of the Board are solely advisory in nature.
A. A member of Congress designated as a member of the Board shall be designated as a member in the first session of the applicable Congress and shall serve for the duration of such Congress.
B. Each individual designated by the President shall serve as a member of the Board for three years, except that any such member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until a successor is appointed by the President.
C. If a member of the Board dies or resigns, a successor shall be designated for any unexpired portion of the term of the member by the official who designated the member.
A. Meetings are held at the call of the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), who will coordinate with members of the Board to the greatest extent practicable to determine the date and time of each meeting. The DFO will make arrangements for the meeting, including publishing a timely notice in the
B. The Board will meet at least once annually at the Academy or other suitable location chosen by the Commandant.
C. Each member of the Board shall be reimbursed, to the extent permitted by law, by the U.S. Coast Guard for actual expenses incurred while engaged in their duties as a Member of the Board.
D. A meeting will have a quorum when over 50% of the members are in attendance. Board meetings are open to the public unless a determination is made by the appropriate Department of Homeland Security official in accordance with Department of Homeland Security policy and directives that the meeting should be closed in accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection can be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Darian Ziegler, PRA Liaison, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Ziegler.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing to renew an information collection with revisions.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 23, 2026.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
To request additional information about this information collection request (ICR), contact Antonio Celis-Murillo by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
Comments were received on the proposed change that allows applicants to include other biological sampling (other than blood or feather sampling). One comment expressed the open-endedness of the biological sampling question may be problematic and that the USGS should be clear in what they may authorize (
The OC suggested expanding the estimated time of burden to also include development of an online submission system for permit application materials and other permit related processes. The USGS has not changed the estimated burden for the permit application. While there are additional materials required as part of the application process,
The AZGFD also provided additional comments that were program-level recommendations for other aspects of the USGS permitting and unrelated to the proposed modifications to the permit application or information collection.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
To meet these requirements, the BBL collects information such as the permit application and other forms. With the proposed revisions to information collection control #1028-0082, the BBL aims to provide essential clarity, enhance efficiency, and eliminate duplication, thereby further reducing the administrative burden for both the public and the USGS. Other forms in control #1028-0082, including the permit renewal form and the bird banding recovery report, remain unchanged.
(1) Applicant Height, Weight, Hair Color, Eye Color, Gender (Male/Female).
(2) Type of Permit.
(3) Current and previous federal migratory permits possessed, previously possessed, or pending.
(4) If blood sampling is being requested, the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, site of the blood draw or technique, the volume of blood, why blood sampling is needed, how it will be used, and the applicant's qualifications for such blood sampling.
(5) If feather sampling is being requested, the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, what feathers and how many are needed, why is feather sampling needed, how it will be used, and the applicant's qualifications for feather sampling.
(6) Species proposed to band or mark based on groups.
(7) Trapping techniques proposed: mist nets, rocket nets, and cannon nets, or list of other intended techniques.
(8) Auxiliary marking being requested and the master permit holder and permit number of the person requiring permission, species, techniques used, type of marker used, why are aux markers needed, how will they be used, and the applicant's qualifications for feather sampling.
(9) Description of what an applicant hopes to accomplish by banding birds.
(10) References—names, email, addresses in which whom the BBL may consult with regarding an applicant's qualifications.
(1) Type of Permit. We removed “Renewal Permit” as this is outdated information. Renewals are submitted by permitted banders through the Bander Portal and do not require this form. We added the options, of “Master Station,” “Master Personal,” and “Change in Responsible Individual” to this section. These options were consolidated from other sections to provide clarity to the BBL on the type of permit being requested.
(2) (NEW) Applicant Type. A section on Applicant Type, was added to provide clarity to the BBL and ensure consistency with the program's database. Applicant Types include Federal, State, Tribal, Local Government, Non-governmental Organization, University, Avocational Biologist, Business, and Other.
(3) Personal information such as Height, Weight, Hair Color, Eye Color were removed from the application. This information is irrelevant to BBL permitting.
(4) Gender was modified to Sex and an option for “undisclosed” was added.
(5) Contact Information. We consolidated home and business addresses into one address section. The applicant is now only required to provide one address to the BBL for correspondence and has the option to include an organization, if applicable.
(6) Species. We eliminated the pre-selected species groups and instead allow the applicant to list their proposed species groups or individual species for banding.
(7) Capture techniques. We eliminated the pre-selected techniques and instead allow the applicant to list their proposed capture techniques.
(8) Auxiliary marking. We removed requests for information in this section that were redundant. Species, techniques, and purposes for auxiliary marking are already required as part of the applicant's Comprehensive Project Description as part of the scientific justification for banding and marking. An applicant's skills and qualifications for auxiliary marking are already required as part of their banding resume.
(9) Blood and Feather Sampling. We removed requests for information in this section that were redundant. Species, techniques, and purposes for blood and feather sampling are already required as part of the applicant's Comprehensive Project Description as part of the scientific justification for banding and marking. An applicant's skills and qualifications for blood and feather sampling are already required as part of their banding resume.
(10) (NEW) Biological Sampling. We added a new section that allows an applicant to request other types of biological sampling (
(11) Removed section. Description of what an applicant hopes to accomplish by banding birds. We replaced this section with a yes/no option if the applicant has included a Comprehensive Project Description as part of their application package. The Comprehensive Project Description should include all the necessary details for the BBL to properly evaluate a proposal as a scientifically justifiable banding or marking project.
(11) (NEW) Banding Resume. We added a yes/no option if the applicant has included a banding resume as part of their application package and that it should include previous bird banding and marking experiences for the BBL to properly evaluate an applicant's skills and formal training for capturing and banding or marking of birds.
(12) References. We modified the References section to simply state that three letters of recommendation must be received by the BBL before any application is considered and that a minimum of two references should be from a bird bander that has worked directly with the applicant and can confirm their experience and abilities. Applicants no longer need to provide names, emails, addresses as that information is redundant to the information provided by their references who submit letters of recommendation.
(13) (NEW) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This section was added to the permit application to protect applicants that are not covered by the Privacy Act and allow for the identification of any information that should be considered privileged and confidential business information to the USGS to meet its responsibility under FOIA. This section is informational and does not require any additional input or effort from the applicant.
Copies of the draft forms are available to the public by submitting a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using one of the methods identified in
In the 60-day notice (91 FR 17811), the USGS included estimated respondents, responses, completion and burden time as revisions were only proposed for the permit application. No changes were proposed for the permit renewal form or the bird banding recovery report. However, all forms under information collection control #1028-0082 expire on February 28, 2027, and for transparency, we have now included the estimated respondents, responses, and completion and burden time for all three forms under information collection control #1028-0082. The permit renewal form and the bird banding recovery report continue to remain unchanged.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Liquor Control Code, which repeals and replaces the previous liquor code published on January 14, 1986.
This code shall become effective August 24, 2026.
Karrie-Ann Quartz, Acting Tribal Government Officer, Western Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2600 N. Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Telephone: (480) 744-4992 or Oliver Whaley, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, (202) 738-6065.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Pub. Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
On October 19, 2023, the Tonto Apache Tribe adopted this Liquor Code by Resolution No. 23-34, which regulates and controls the possession, sale, manufacture, and distribution of alcohol in conformity with the laws of the State of Arizona to the extent required by applicable federal law, including 18 U.S.C. 1161. Enactment of this Code will help improve the economic viability for the Tribe, provide a source of revenue to strengthen Tribal government, which may be used to provide basic governmental functions for its members.
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 Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona duly adopted the Tonto Apache Tribe Liquor Control Code by Resolution No. 23-34 dated October 19, 2023.
The Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Liquor Control Code shall read as follows:
A law to authorize and regulate liquor transactions within the jurisdiction of the Tonto Apache Tribe.
Section #1—Authority: Enacted by the Tribal Council of the Tonto Apache Tribe (“Tribal Council”) on October 19th, 2023 by Resolution #23-34. This Code is enacted pursuant to federal statutes and other laws, including the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 586, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1161, and in conformity with applicable laws of the State of Arizona (“State”).
Section #2—Purpose: The Tribal Council, as the governing body of the Tonto Apache Tribe (“Tribe”) hereby enacts this Code to authorize and regulate Liquor Transactions within the Tribal Lands.
Section #3—Policy: The authorization and regulation of Liquor Transactions is necessary to encourage economic development, improve the Tribe's economic situation, and generate revenue for the Tribe, which may be used to provide basic governmental functions for its members.
Section #4—Sovereign Immunity: Unless otherwise specified in this Code, all inherent sovereign rights of the Tribe are hereby expressly reserved, including sovereign immunity from suit in any state, federal or tribal court.
Section #5—Jurisdiction: This Code shall apply to all members of the Tribe, any person engaged in Liquor Transactions within the Tribal Lands, and all employees of a person conducting Liquor Transactions within the jurisdiction of the Tribe.
Section #6—General Prohibition: It shall be a violation of the laws of the Tribe for any person or entity, other than a Manufacturer, Retailer, or Wholesaler, to sell, store, transport, or conduct any Liquor Transactions except in compliance with the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions specified in this Code.
Section #7—Tribal Control of Liquor: The Tribe has the sole and exclusive right to authorize a Manufacturer of Liquor, including a Distiller, Brewer, Winery, cidery and bottling, within or importation of alcoholic beverages into the Tribal Lands for Sale or for the purpose of conducting transactions therewith, and no person or organization may engage in such activities within or import any such alcoholic beverages into the Tribal Lands unless authorized by the Tribe to do so.
Section #8—Applicability of State Law: Except as may be otherwise authorized by agreement between the Tribe and the State, the Tribe shall require compliance with the State's laws regarding the Sale of Liquor to the extent required by applicable federal law, including 18 U.S.C. Section 1161.
Section #9—Power to License and Tax: The power to establish licenses and levy taxes under the provisions of this Code is vested exclusively with the Tribe.
Section #10—Severability: If any section of this Code is invalidated by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections shall not be affected thereby.
Section #11—Definitions:
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“Winery” means a Manufacturer engaged in the business of producing Wine.
Section #12—Effective Date: This Code shall become effective upon the date that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior certifies the
(a) be at least twenty-one (21) years of age and show proof of High School Diploma or equivalent; and
(b) not be eligible for appointment as a Regulator if:
i. the person's prior activities, criminal record if any, credit history or reputation, habits, or associations:
1. poses a threat to the public interest;
2. threatens the effective regulation and control of the activities authorized and regulated under this Code or the public's confidence in said regulation; or
3. enhances the dangers of unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices, methods, or activities in the conduct authorized and regulated by this Code.
ii. been convicted of or entered a plea of no contest to any felony in the five (5) years prior to appointment unless pardoned and fully restored of his or her civil rights by the proper authorities prior to appointment; or
iii. who has, or whose spouse, significant other, parent, child or sibling has, an ownership, partnership, or other direct monetary or ownership interest in the activities authorized and regulated under the Code.
(a) to establish procedures designed to detect irregularities or fraud;
(b) to design a regulatory system to oversee Liquor Transactions;
(c) to collaborate and cooperate with such other agencies of the Tribe, other tribes, the United States, and state governments as necessary to implement and enforce this Code;
(d) to establish procedures governing the conduct of inspections, investigations, hearings and enforcement actions; or
(e) promulgate any other regulations to ensure compliance with this Code.
(a) request assistance from federal or local law enforcement, legal counsel and/or other third parties, including applicable federal and state agencies, as necessary;
(b) during normal business hours, may reasonably enter upon premises to examine accounts, books, papers and documents;
(c) make any request or inquiry for information or documents of any person engaged in Liquor Transactions;
(d) require the presence of any person and require testimony under oath concerning the subject matter of any inquiry of the Commission, and to make a permanent record of the proceeding; or
(e) conduct any investigation to determine compliance with this Code.
(a) require a license for each business or entity engaged as a Manufacturer, Wholesaler, or Retailer, or engaged in Onsite Consumption as authorized by this Code;
(b) establish business applications, which at a minimum shall include:
i. the names of all Key Participants;
ii. list of all licenses related to Liquor Transactions for which applicant has ever applied to the Commission or any other tribal, state, federal or local government, and indication of whether such licenses were issued;
iii. disclosure of any Liquor Transaction related licenses that have been denied or revoked;
iv. sworn statement that applicant agrees a license is a revocable privilege and not a right;
v. sworn statement that applicant acknowledges the license may not be sold, assigned or transferred;
vi. sworn statement that applicant's Key Participants shall seek and maintain a license with the Commission;
vii. sworn statement that applicant will submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribe; and
viii. an application fee as set by the Commission.
(c) conduct a due diligence investigation of the applicant to sufficiently allow the Commission to make an eligibility determination on whether a license should be issued, which shall be completed within sixty (60) days of receipt of the application or automatically be deemed a denial;
(d) approve applications if Commission determines the following criteria is met:
i. applicant complied with all Commission requirements; and
ii. the Liquor Transactions applicant intends to conduct are authorized by this Code.
(e) deny applications if Commission determines the applicant has not complied with all requirements of the laws of the Tribe, applicable State liquor laws, or applicable federal laws and:
i. immediately suspend any temporary license previously issued;
ii. provide written notice of ineligibility to receive a license; and
iii. provide the applicant with the option to request a hearing on the denial, which shall follow the procedures at Part 7, Section 2.2.
(f) for applicant's that are determined eligible for a license under this Section, issue a license that at a minimum shall include:
i. licensee name;
ii. license classification (
iii. location of licensed facility; iv. Tribe's logo;
iv. issue date; and
v. license number.
(g). maintain records of all license applicants and licensees, including applications, background investigation reports, and eligibility determination reports for no less than five (5) years.
(a) require a license for all Key Participants of any licensee;
(b) establish applications for Key Participants which at a minimum shall include:
i. full name, other names used (oral or written), social security number, birth date, place of birth, and citizenship;
ii. currently, and for the previous five (5) years, business and employment positions held, ownership interests in those business, business and residential addresses, and driver's licenses (number, date of issuance and expiration);
iii. current business and residential telephone numbers, and all cell phone numbers, personal and business;
iv. a description of any existing and previous business relationships dealing with Liquor Transactions generally, including ownership interest in those businesses;
v. the name and address of any licensing or regulatory agency with which the person has filed an application for a license or permit related to Liquor Transactions, whether or not such license or permit was granted;
vi. for each criminal charge, felony or misdemeanor: whether or not there is a conviction, if such criminal charge is within the last five (5) years of the date of application, a description of the criminal charge, the name and address of the court involved, and the date of disposition, if any; and
vii. any other information the Commission deems relevant.
(c) conduct background investigations for each Key Participant applicant to sufficiently allow the Commission to make an eligibility determination on whether a license should be issued, which background investigation shall be completed within sixty (60) days of receipt of the application or shall automatically be deemed a denial, and at a minimum should include an inquiry of:
i. criminal history through background checks;
ii. civil history; and
iii. personal credit check.
(d) create and maintain an investigative report for each background investigation of a Key Participant applicant, which at a minimum shall include:
i. steps taken to investigate or verify the contents of the applications; and
ii. results and conclusions.
(e) make a determination of suitability on whether to issue a license. The Commission shall not issue a license if the applicant's prior activities, criminal record if any, credit history or reputation, habits, or associations:
i. poses a threat to the public interest;
ii. threatens the effective regulation and control of the activities authorized and regulated under this Code or the public's confidence in said regulation;
iii. enhances the dangers of unsuitable, unfair or illegal practices, methods, or activities in the conduct authorized and regulated by this Code;
iv. has been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony or any criminal offense related to Liquor in any jurisdiction other than driving while intoxicated or under the influence of Liquor; or
v. has had a liquor license revoked in any jurisdiction in the previous two (2) years.
(f) if the applicant is not eligible for a license, the Commission shall:
i. immediately suspend any temporary license previously issued;
ii. provide written notice of ineligibility to receive a license; and
iii. provide the applicant with the option to request a hearing on the denial, which shall follow the procedures at Part 7, Section 2.2.
(g) for applicant's that are determined eligible for a license under this Section, issue a Key Participant license that at a minimum shall include:
i. Key Participant name;
ii. Tribe's logo;
iii. issue date; and
iv. license number;
(h) maintain records of all applicants and licensees, including applications, background investigation reports, and eligibility determination reports for no less than five (5) years.
(a) all licenses issued and any fees received for the same;
(b) all fees and penalties imposed, due, and collected; and
(c) every official action taken by the Commission.
(a) waive sovereign immunity of the Commission or the Tribe without receiving written approval from the Tribal Council; or
(b) make business decisions for a licensed entity under this Code.
(a) at all times comply with this Code, rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this Code, and all other applicable Tribal laws, State liquor laws, and applicable federal laws;
(b) provide the Commission written notice of a material change, including but not limited to, company name, address, management, bankruptcy, reorganization, complaints or felony convictions against Key Participant licensees, not later than ten (10) days after the change occurs;
(c) establish sanitation, security, and other related policies that comply with the Code, Tribal and federal laws, and transmit current copies to the Commission when revised;
(d) post license in all physical locations where the business is transacted;
(e) preserve records of the purchase and Sale of Liquor, including books of account, invoices, and bills for a period of two (2) years;
(f) provide the Commission access to investigate books, accounts and records;
(g) submit monthly reports with details as required by the Commission;
(h) submit annual reports to the Commission which at a minimum shall include:
i. name, address and contact information for licensee and Key Participants;
ii. description of Liquor Transactions conducted;
iii. sworn statement licensee has complied with Tribal laws, applicable State liquor laws, and federal laws; and
iv. the name and signature of agent who will accept service of process on behalf of the licensee;
(i) conduct internal audits to ensure compliance with Tribal laws, applicable State liquor laws and federal laws, and submit the results to the Commission.
(a) allow loitering by intoxicated persons, rowdiness, undue noise, or any other disturbance offensive to the public areas near the location of the licensee;
(b) engage in Liquor Transactions in violation of this Code, State liquor laws, or applicable federal laws; or
(c) fail to pay taxes required under the laws of the Tribe.
(a) failed to pay license application fee to Commission;
(b) made a material misstatement or omission on the application or any document submitted to the Commission;
(c) withheld or provided incomplete or insufficient pertinent information;
(d) refused to comply with any lawful order, inquiry, directive of the Commission, or the Tribal Council;
(e) violated this Code or the rules and regulations of the Commission;
(f) aided another or conspired to violate this Code or the rules and regulations of the Commission; engaged in Liquor Transactions not authorized by this Code;
(g) knowingly falsified books or records;
(h) failed to keep sufficient books or records for the Commission to determine compliance with Tribal laws, applicable State liquor laws, and federal law;
(i) has had an order entered against them by an administrative agency of any jurisdiction and the order is based on conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(j) has had a financial order entered against them in a civil action based on conduct involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(k) attempted to bribe or offer something of value to any person, Tribal Council member, or the Regulator or member of the Commission in attempt to receive favorable treatment under the Code, or applicable Tribal or federal law;
(l) poses a threat to the public interest or the effective regulation of Liquor Transactions;
(m) creates or enhances the danger of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and activities related to Liquor Transactions;
(n) was a former licensee pursuant to this Code whose license was suspended and not reinstated, or revoked;
(o) was not eligible for licensure for any of the reasons identified at Part 2, Section 3.2(e) and Part 2, Section 3.3(e).
(a) provide written notice of the ineligibility to receive a license, which shall state the reasons for the denial; and
(b) provide the applicant with the option to request a hearing on the decision, which shall follow the procedures at Part 7, Section 2.6.
(a) upon complaint;
(b) upon its own initiative when there is a reasonable basis for belief there has been a violation of the Code; or
(c) whenever necessary to perform its duties and exercise its powers under the Code.
(a) within ten (10) days after receiving a request for a hearing, the Commission shall schedule a hearing and issue a notice identifying the issues to be resolved, and the date, time and location of the hearing, which shall be set no sooner than five (5) days after receipt of the request for a hearing but no later than sixty (60) days after receipt of request for a hearing;
(b) at the hearing, the affected parties shall be provided the opportunity to present oral or written testimony and other evidence to dispute the violation;
(c) the Commission may promulgate rules governing the hearing procedures;
(d) the Regulator will preside over the hearing;
(e) the Commission shall issue a written decision within thirty (30) days after the hearing; and
(f) affected parties may appeal the Commission's decision by filing a written appeal to the Tribal Council within twenty (20) days of receiving the Commission's final written decision, which shall be placed on the Tribal Council's agenda at its earliest convenience but no later than sixty (60) days after the notice of appeal is filed, which decision of the Tribal Council on appeal shall be final and is not subject to further appeal.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces a revision to the Department of the Interior (Department)'s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for timber salvage harvest in the
The CE is effective August 24, 2026.
The new CE will be found at the web address for the Department's Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures:
Stacie McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Director, Directorate of Resources and Planning at (907) 378 -3815, or
The Department published the proposed CE for timber salvage harvest on April 6, 2026, for a 30-day public comment period. Refer to the
The Department is establishing the CE to support approval of actions to harvest dead or dying trees impacted by biotic or abiotic disturbances, commonly referred to as “salvage harvest” to accelerate reestablishment of native resilient forest tree species, reduce wildfire fuel loads, and help recover economic value from timber to contribute to rural economies.
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Under NEPA, agencies may establish CEs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in their agency NEPA implementing procedures (42 U.S.C. 4336e(1)). An agency may also adopt a CE listed in another agency's NEPA procedures consistent with section 109 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4336c).
Under the Department's NEPA procedures, if a bureau determines that a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which are factors or circumstances that indicate a normally categorically excluded action may have
The Department received 284 comment letters during the 30-day public comment period on the proposed CE. Comments were submitted by state governments, interest groups, non-profit organizations, and private citizens. The Department received comments both in support of and in opposition to the proposed CE. Some comments addressed the BLM's forest management policy or management direction that is specific to Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The Department provides no response to comments that are beyond the scope of the establishment of this CE, which pertains only to compliance with NEPA for forest management actions, not the character or advisability of such actions. The Department considered all comments to date and responds in this notice to all 25 substantive issues raised in the public comments. The Department appreciates the interest and participation of all respondents. The Department, where appropriate, grouped together similar or related comments, and responds to the comments as follows:
The Department finds that the category of actions described in this timber salvage harvest CE does not normally have a significant effect on the
The Department consulted with CEQ on the establishment of this new timber salvage harvest CE consistent with section 102(2)(B) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B). Therefore, the Department adds this CE to the DOI NEPA Handbook, Appendix 2.
When applying this CE, responsible officials will evaluate proposed actions covered by the CE to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are present in accordance with the requirements in the Department's NEPA implementing procedures at 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.215. For use of this CE, the responsible official would document this review. If the responsible official cannot use this CE to support a decision to authorize timber salvage harvest activities due to extraordinary circumstances, the responsible official will prepare an EA or EIS before authorizing such activities, consistent with 43 CFR 46.205(c) and 42 U.S.C. 4336(b).
The
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces a revision to the Department of the Interior (Department)'s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures by adding a new categorical exclusion (CE) for forest and woodland density management in the
The CE is effective August 24, 2026.
The web address for the Department's Handbook of NEPA Implementing Procedures where the new CE is being added is:
Stacie McIntosh, Deputy Assistant Director, Directorate of Resources and Planning at (907) 378-3815, or
The Department published the proposed CE for forest and woodland density management on April 6, 2026, for a 30-day public comment period. Refer to the
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
Under NEPA, agencies may establish CEs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in their agency NEPA implementing procedures (42U.S.C. 4336e(1)). An agency may also adopt for its own use a CE listed in another agency's NEPA procedures consistent with section 109 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4336c).
Under the Department's NEPA procedures, if a bureau determines that a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which are factors or circumstances that indicate a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant effect (43 CFR 46.205, 46.215). If the bureau cannot categorically exclude the proposed action following review for extraordinary circumstances, the bureau will prepare an EA or EIS, as appropriate, before issuing any decision to authorize the action (43 CFR 46.205(c), 42 U.S.C. 4336(b)).
The Department received 338 comment letters during the 30-day public comment period on the proposed CE. State governments, interest groups, non-profit organizations, and private citizens submitted comments. The Department received comments both in support of and in opposition to the proposed CE. Some comments addressed BLM's forest management policy or management direction that is specific to Resource Management Plans (RMPs); however, these comments are beyond the scope of the establishment of this CE, which pertains only to compliance with NEPA for forest management actions, not the character or advisability of such actions, and the Department provides no response to such comments. Some commenters provided additional scientific literature for the Department's consideration; BLM evaluated the literature and revised the Substantiation Report to include and discuss those additional citations, as appropriate. The Department considered all comments received during the comment period and responds in this notice to the 13 substantive issues raised in the public comments that pertain to NEPA compliance. The Department appreciates the interest and participation of all respondents. The Department, where appropriate, considered and addressed similar or related comments in one response, and responds to the comments as follows:
The Department finds that the type of actions described in this forestry and woodland density management CE do not normally have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This finding is based on the analysis of these types of actions, as documented in the BLM's Substantiation Report for this CE, supporting documents, and the relevant scientific literature. To demonstrate the finding that actions under the proposed CEs would not normally result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment, the Department reviewed proposed actions evaluated in 84 EAs that supported FONSIs as well as post-implementation information and summarized them in the Substantiation Report.
As with other administratively developed CEs for bureaus, when applying this CE, Responsible Officials must evaluate proposed actions to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances are present in accordance with the requirements in the Department's NEPA implementing procedures at 43 CFR 46.205 and
The Department consulted with CEQ on the establishment of this new forest and woodland density management CE consistent with section 102(2)(B) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(B).
The
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Beloit College, Logan Museum of Anthropology (LMA) 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 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Nicolette B. Meister, Beloit College, Logan Museum of Anthropology, 700 College Street, Beloit, WI 53511, 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 LMA, 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, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The LMA purchased a headpiece of
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human described in this notice.
The LMA has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes.
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 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the LMA 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 LMA 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology (RSPI) 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 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Ryan J. Wheeler, RSPI, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, 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 RSPI, 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, one individual have been identified. The individual was removed from an unknown location in Arkansas and transferred to the RSPI (then known as the Department of Archaeology, Phillips Academy) likely in the early part of the twentieth century.
There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
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.
The RSPI has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Quapaw Nation.
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 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the RSPI 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 RSPI 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Princeton University Art Museum intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Lauren Jakobsson, Project Analyst of the Cultural Property and Human Remains Repatriation Program, Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton University, Elm Drive, Princeton, NJ 08544, 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 Princeton University Art Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a red-on-buff ceramic vessel in the form of a human head, that was excavated at the Big Eddy Site in St. Francis County, Arkansas in 1970. The archaeological context of the vessel is described by excavator Janine Fentiman in a 1981 publication: “The burial in question was located about 2
Princeton University Art Museum has no knowledge of the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat the object.
The Princeton University Art Museum has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and is connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary object has been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Quapaw Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Princeton University Art Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Princeton University Art Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of North Dakota intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Crystal Alberts, University of North Dakota, Carnegie Hall, 250 Centennial Drive, Stop 8193, Grand Forks, ND 58202, 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 University of North Dakota and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 121,218 unassociated funerary objects have been requested for repatriation. The 121,218 unassociated funerary objects consist primarily of stone. Based on documentation held by the University of North Dakota, the items were removed from multiple sites in Dunn County, North Dakota. The
The University of North Dakota has determined that:
• The 121,218 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of North Dakota must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of North Dakota is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Museum of Natural History intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, 200 Central Park West, New York, NY 10024, 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 American Museum of Natural History, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
One cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one unassociated funerary object is a ceramic smoking pipe with a human face. The item was collected at Lake Champlain, Vermont. The human effigy pipe was donated to the Museum by Andrew Ellicott Douglass in 1901 as part of a vast personal collection of up to 23,000 archaeological items. Museum records indicate that Douglass purchased the item from M.F. Savage, a prominent antiquities dealer who worked for Tiffany & Co. in New York City in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As such, the Museum was unable to find detailed provenience information for the pipe beyond “Lake Champlain, VT.” During consultation, the Stockbridge Munsee Community indicated that pipes of this kind are known to have been included in burials of Mohican ancestors. The longstanding connection between tobacco pipes and funerary rituals in the northeastern United States is well-documented archaeologically, beginning as early as the Late Archaic (ca. 3000-1000 BC).
While it no longer does so, in the past, the Museum applied potentially hazardous pesticides to items in the collections. Museum records do not list specific objects treated or which of several chemicals used were applied to a particular item. Therefore, those handling this material should follow the advice of industrial hygienists or medical personnel with specialized training in occupational health or with potentially hazardous substances.
The American Museum of Natural History has determined that:
• The one unassociated funerary object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and is connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary object has been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the American Museum of Natural History must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The American Museum of Natural History is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jessica Ulmer, The University of Texas at Austin Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, 1 University Station, R7500, Austin, TX 78712, 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 TARL, 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 119 individuals have been identified. The 18,934 associated funerary objects include lithic tools, ceramic sherds, ceramic vessels, modified shell, glass and shell beads, faunal bone, ochre, copper covered wooden earspools, charcoal samples, soil samples, and historic materials.
Of the total individuals and materials, 11 individuals and 3,025 associated funerary objects are from archaeological site 41LR1 in Lamar County. Multiple archaeological projects conducted between 1929 and 1964 led to Native American human remains and associated funerary objects being removed from site. Between 1929 and 1995, the above human remains and associated funerary objects came to be held at TARL from excavations, surveys, and donations. The site has historically been associated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Human remains representing at least 105 individuals and 15,826 associated funerary objects are housed at TARL from site 41LR2 in Lamar County. Multiple archaeological projects conducted between 1929 and 1961 led to Native American human remains and associated funerary objects being removed from site. Between 1929 and 1995, the human remains and associated funerary objects came to be held at TARL from excavations, surveys, and donations. The site has long been associated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
At least one individual and 81 associated funerary objects are from archaeological site 41LR3 in Lamar County. Several private collections made in 1934 and 1935 led to Native American human remains and associated funerary objects being removed from site. In 1934 and 1936 the above human remains and associated funerary objects came to be held at TARL. The site has historically been associated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Private collections also resulted in Native American human remains and associated funerary objects being removed from an archaeological site in Lamar County referred to as the E.E. Sturdevant Farm. Lacking a trinomial designation, the site is listed as 41LR-. A total of two ancestors and two associated funerary objects were removed from this site. In 1936, the human remains and associated funerary objects from this collection came to be held at TARL. This area has historically been associated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
TARL has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 119 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 18,934 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco, & Tawakonie), Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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 and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, TARL must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cape Cod National Seashore (CACO) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Jennifer Flynn, Cape Cod National Seashore, National Park Service, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667, 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 Superintendent, CACO, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified in a collection that originated from an archaeological excavation conducted in Barnstable County, MA in 1969-1970. The remains were housed at Plimoth Patuxet Museums (previously known as Plimoth Plantation Museums) before being transferred to CACO in 1982. The 337 associated funerary objects were identified during an amateur archaeological excavation in Barnstable County, MA in 1960. The 337 associated funerary objects consist of stemmed points, notched points, drills, bifaces, scrapers, axes, adzes, pestles, and a piece of worked antler. The site was interpreted as a cremation burial and the collection was gifted to CACO by the property owners in 1966.
There is no record or documentation of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
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 and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
CACO has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 337 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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 and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, CACO must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. CACO 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums—Garvies Point Museum and Preserve 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 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Veronica Natale, Garvies Point Museum and Preserve, 50 Barry Drive, Glen Cove, NY 11542, email
This notice is published as part of the
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. A nearly complete skeleton recovered from a locality developed from housing on Throg's Neck. A second individual represented by a mandible only is present. Provenance: Throg's Neck, The Bronx, NY. Donated to the museum by Stanley Wisniewski, 1968. A largely complete skeleton. Found in pit #5. Provenance: NCM # 140, Archery Range site, The Bronx, NY. Reference: Kaeser, Edward J. (1970) “The Archery Range Site Ossuary, Pelham Bay Park, Bronx County, New York, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, Vol. 40, Nos. 1-2, pp 9-44. Donated to the museum by Edward J. Kaeser, 1971.”
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums—Garvies Point Museum and Preserve has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
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 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums—Garvies Point Museum and Preserve 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 Nassau County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Museums—Garvies Point Museum and Preserve 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Boston Children's Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Melissa Higgins, Boston Children's Museum, 308 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210, 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 Boston Children's Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of eight cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The eight sacred objects are two 'Umeke Lā'au (Wooden Bowls), an Ipu Wai (Water Container), an 'Ulu Maika (Bowling Stone), an I'e Kuku (Tapa Beater), an Koko (Net Holder for Bowl), an Pōhaku Ku'i 'Ai (Poi Pounder), and a Lūhe'e (Octopus Lure).
The Ipu Wai, 'Ulu Maika, and I'e Kuku were donated to the museum in 1915 by Lucy M. Prince of Boston, after it was collected by her sister, Frances C. Prince, in 1898 on a trip to the Pacific Islands to gather materials for lectures.
One of the 'Umeke Lā'au was donated to the museum in 1949 by Dorothy Hildreth of Cambridge, Massachusetts. While the other 'Umeke Lā'au is bereft of accession and provenance information, contextual information such as its object ID number indicate it was most likely donated to the museum during or before the year of 1930.
The Koko, indicated to be 100 years old at time of sale, and the Pōhaku Ku'i 'Ai, noted to have originated in Kauai, was purchased by the museum in 1968 from Joseph A. O'Leary of Opa-Locka, Florida.
The Lūhe'e's provenance is unfortunately unknown. Based-off of the museum staffs' knowledge of the institution's cataloging system (XX numbering), the object was most likely Found-in-Collections during the 1950s-60s but actually donated or gifted in the earlier years of the museum, c. 1913-1930.
All of these items have cultural associations with Hui Iwi Kuamo'o. No potentially hazardous substances are known to have been used to treat any of these items.
Boston Children's Museum has determined that:
• The eight sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Boston Children's Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. Boston Children's Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California Department of Parks and Recreation intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Leslie L. Hartzell, NAGPRA Coordinator, California Department of Parks and Recreation, P.O. Box 942896, Sacramento, CA 94296-0001, 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 Department of Parks and Recreation, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 873 lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
The 873 lots of objects of cultural patrimony are asphaltum, ceramic artifacts, flaked stone artifacts, groundstone, modified bone, organic ecofacts, and unidentified missing material. Some of the cultural items are physically attached to display mounts. Between 1918 and 1930, Nestor Alcinous Young, Jr. removed the cultural items (ACCN.CH:1) from within a thousand-yard radius of the house and spring (Barrel Springs/CA-LAN-82) on his farm in Antelope Valley, California. In 1947, Young sold the collection to the University of Southern California Anthropology Department. In 1954, the department transferred the collection to the Antelope Valley Indian Museum. In 1979, Grace Oliver donated the Antelope Valley Indian Museum collection to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The California Department of Parks and Recreation has no information about the cultural items being treated with potentially hazardous substances.
The California Department of Parks and Recreation has determined that:
• The 873 lots objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (previously listed as San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California).
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California Department of Parks and Recreation must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Field Museum of Natural History 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 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to June Carpenter, NAGPRA Director, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, 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 Field Museum, 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, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The human remains are hair clippings belonging to one individual, identified with the tribal designation “Ottawa?” Field Museum staff believe they were collected under the direction of Franz Boas and Frederick Ward Putnam for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The hair clippings were accessioned into the Field Museum's collection in 1939. No information regarding the individual's name, sex, age, or geographic location has been found. There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The Field Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan.
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 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Field Museum 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 Field Museum 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Sonoma State University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Kirsten Twork, Sonoma State University, 1801 E Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, 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 Sonoma State University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one lot of cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The one lot of unassociated funerary objects are soil samples. Other unassociated funerary objects originating from CA-SON-1918 were repatriated by Sonoma State University following a Notice of Intended Repatriation published in the
Sonoma State University has determined that:
• The one lot unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Sonoma State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Sonoma State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park intends to carry out the disposition of unassociated funerary objects removed from Federal or Tribal lands to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization with priority for disposition in this notice.
Disposition of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If no claim for disposition is received by August 24, 2027, the cultural items in this notice will become unclaimed cultural items.
Send written claims for disposition of the cultural items in this notice to Charles Sellars, Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 37728, 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 Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and additional information on the cultural items in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the related records.
Based on the information available, the 164 unassociated funerary objects include one large chert blade, 148 lithic flakes, one small mammal radius, five pottery sherds, one ground stone, six ceramic daubs, and two pieces of red ochre/hematite. These items were initially discovered on December 2, 2014, during trenching associated with Metcalf Bottoms in Sevier County, TN. They were identified as cultural items in consultation with Tribes as part of a larger survey of potential NAGPRA materials in the park museum collections between 2022 and 2024.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park has determined that:
• The 164 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have priority for disposition of the cultural items described in this notice.
Written claims for disposition of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the appropriate official identified in this notice under
1. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows that they have priority for disposition.
Disposition of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing claims for disposition are received, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park must determine the most appropriate claimant prior to disposition. Claims for joint disposition of the cultural items are considered a single claim and not competing claims. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Cindy-Carter Davis, Chief Archaeologist, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Historic Preservation Division, 100 South State Street, P.O. Box 571, Jackson, MS 39205, 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 Mississippi Department of Archives and History, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one lot of cultural items has been requested from 22WI500 (Nanih Waiya). The one lot of unassociated funerary objects consist of lithics. The collection was recovered from the site by a private individual. An additional collection has no provenience information available.
A total of one lot of cultural items has been requested for repatriation from 22NE632 (Nanih Waiya Cave). The one lot of unassociated funerary objects consist of lithics. This collection has no provenience information.
Through Tribal consultation, the two lots of unassociated funerary objects were identified as culturally affiliated with The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians.
To our knowledge, no known hazardous substances were used to treat any of the unassociated funerary objects.
The Mississippi Department of Archives and History has determined that:
• The two lots of unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Mississippi Department of Archives and History must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Mississippi Department of Archives and History is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Iliff School of Theology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Caran Ware Joseph, Iliff School of Theology, 2323 E. Iliff Avenue, Denver, CO 80210, 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 Iliff School of Theology, 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, one individual have been identified. The one associated funerary object is a book of Christian History, written in Latin. The book is entitled,
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, the cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Iliff School of Theology has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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 and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Iliff School of Theology must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Iliff School of Theology 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.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of North Dakota and the State Historical Society of North Dakota have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Crystal Alberts, University of North Dakota, Carnegie Hall, 250 Centennial Drive, Stop 8193, Grand Forks, ND 58202, 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 University of North Dakota and the State Historical Society of North Dakota, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals, reasonably identified, along with 53,411 associated funerary objects, were removed from a site in Morton County, ND. The 53,411 associated funerary objects include faunal bone, ceramics, stone, botanicals, metal, ornamental materials, shells, as well as other organic and inorganic materials. The University of North Dakota (UND) and the State Historical Society of North Dakota (SHSND) have no record of any potentially hazardous substances being used to treat the human remains or associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of North Dakota and the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 53,411 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects 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
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of North Dakota and the State Historical Society of North Dakota must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of North Dakota is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Bryan Hilley, Senior Associate Registrar, Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University, 2001 Campus Drive, Durham, NC 27705, 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 Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four unassociated funerary objects are three pottery vessels, dish shaped (1973.44.9, 1973.44.10, and 1973.44.15) and one pottery vessel, bat effigy (1973.44.14). The works were offered to the museum in 1973 by Mr. and Mrs. Harry Devine of Macon, GA. A February 9, 1973, appraisal lists geographic locations: 1973.44.9 “Mississippi County Arkansas), 1973.44.10 (Crittenden County, Arkansas), 1973.44.14 (Crittenden County, Arkansas) and 1973.44.15 (Cross County, Arkansas).
The Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University has determined that:
• The four unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Quapaw Nation.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (NYOPRHP) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jessica Vavrasek, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Peebles Island State Park, P.O. Box 189, Waterford, NY 12188-0189, email
This notice is published as part of the
A total of 187 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 50 unassociated funerary objects include wampum, pendants, gorgets, celts, adzes, ceramic bowl, pipe fragments, ceramic pots, bear teeth, and bear jaw. The 137 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony include lithics, net sinkers, nutting stones, projectile points, coin, shells, historic artifacts, pipe fragments, metal and a button. Objects on display at Trailside Museum at Bear Mountain State Park. Exact origins of these objects is unknown but suspected of being from in or around the park. The objects smell strongly of mothballs, other preservation treats conducted on these objects are unknown. The objects recovered from the Nicoll Farm and O'Rourke Farm were excavated from a known Ancestral burial site and were later donated/stored on Iona Island within Bear Mountain State Park. No preservation treatments have been conducted on these to the best of our knowledge.
The NYOPRHP has determined that:
• The 50 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 137 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the NYOPRHP must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The NYOPRHP is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Yager Museum of Art & Culture, Hartwick College (Yager Museum) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after September 23, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Quentin Lewis, Yager Museum of Art & Culture, Hartwick College, 1 Hartwick Drive, Oneonta, NY 13820, 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 Yager Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 31 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 31 unassociated funerary objects consist of two groups of objects, a group of 15 objects and a group of 16 objects.
The group of 15 unassociated funerary objects includes one pipe bowl, one celt, one pipe, three projectile points, seven potsherds, one netsinker, and one ceramic vessel. These objects were disinterred from a known burial site in Delaware County, NY by George Swarthout, Aleck Proskin and others between 1894 and 1906 and acquired by Willard Yager sometime prior to his death in 1929. The group of 16 unassociated funerary objects includes four gorgets, five pendants, two pipes, one statue, one ceramic vessel, one potsherd, one bannerstone, and one knife. Except for one of the gorgets, which was collected by Clifford Anderson sometime prior to 1984 in Delaware County, and NY, all of these objects were collected by Willard Yager from various sources prior to 1929, and were documented as coming from Delaware County, NY, Susquehanna County, PA, Luzerne County, PA, and Bradford Counnty, PA.
The Yager Museum has determined that:
• The 31 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, or are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; and the Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Yager Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Yager Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program (OSA BP) 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 23, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, 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 OSA BP, 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, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. These human remains were discovered by a private citizen who saw them on display at the Okoboji Antique Mall in Arnolds Park, IA and reported them to the UI OSA in late June 2026. The State Archaeologist saw to their transfer to the OSA in early July 2026. Handwriting on the human remains suggests they were exposed by gravel quarrying at “Trumble Lake” in 1950. This is likely a misspelling of Trumbull Lake, which is near Arnolds Park, and has several burial sites documented near the lake's southeastern shore. Site [redacted] is the most likely origin of these human remains as it is a gravel quarry where human remains have been previously documented as exposed during quarrying activity. Projectile points were also reportedly encountered but diagnostic types were not described. One adult male is represented (BP4058). No hazardous substances were used to treat the human remains.
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.
The OSA BP has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin; Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma; Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Ponca Tribe of Nebraska; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; The Osage Nation; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
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,
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after September 23, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the OSA BP 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 OSA BP 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on August 19, 2026, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a Recommended Determination regarding public interest should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is extending the deadline for submissions on public interest issues should the Commission find a violation that was set in the notice dated August 11, 2026. This notice and the prior notice are soliciting comments from the public and interested government agencies only.
Joelle P. Justus, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2593. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain Wi-Fi routers, Wi-Fi devices, mesh Wi-Fi network devices and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents ASUStek Computer Inc. of Taipei City, Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of Fremont, CA; and Plume Design Inc. of Palo Alto, CA; and cease and desist orders directed to Plume Design Inc. and ASUS Computer International. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on August 6, 2026, and the Recommended Determination on Public Interest issued in this investigation on August 1, 2026. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on September 18, 2026.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1454”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 21, 2026, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of LG Energy Solution Ltd. of Korea and LG Energy Solution Arizona, Inc. of Queen Creek, Arizona. A supplement was filed on August 5, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain secondary cylindrical batteries, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,420,257 (“the '257 patent”); U.S. Patent No, 11,749,866 (“the '866 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 12,412,924 (“the '924 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 12,412,965 (“the '965 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 12,646,735 (“the '735 patent”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-6 of the '257 patent; claims 1, 4-6, and 9 of the '866 patent; claims 1-9, 12, 14, 16-19, 21-25, and 27-30 of the '924 patent; claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-33 of the '965 patent; and claims 1, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the '735 patent, and whether an industry in the United States is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “secondary (
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge,
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Office of the Pardon Attorney, Department of Justice.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Pardon Attorney (PARDON), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The final rule responding to those comments was published at Application for Relief from Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws with Respect to the Acquisition, Receipt, Transfer, Shipment, Transportation, or Possession of Firearms in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until September 23, 2026.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Kira Gillespie, Deputy Pardon Attorney, Office of the Pardon Attorney, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Main Justice—RFK Building, Washington, DC 20530;
This proposed information collection accompanies the Application for Relief from Disabilities Imposed by Federal Laws with Respect to the Acquisition, Receipt, Transfer, Shipment, Transportation, or Possession of Firearms in the
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
On August 19, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Partial Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Partial Consent Decree would resolve claims the United States has brought on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against Defendant Real Estate Remediation, LLC (“RER”) under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), regarding the Goodrich Asbestos Superfund Site in Miami, Oklahoma (the “Site”). The proposed Partial Consent Decree would also resolve claims the United States has asserted against Defendants George Blakeney and GB Services, LLC (“GB Services”) under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. 3304-3308, for fraudulent transfers each received from RER.
Under the Partial Consent Decree, RER, George Blakeney, and GB Services (the “Settling Defendants”) agree to make a $20,000 payment to EPA, which may be deposited in the Hazardous Substance Superfund established by section 9507 of the Internal Revenue Code. In exchange, the United States covenants not to sue (a) RER under section 107(a) for the United States' past response costs and under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA regarding the Site,
(b) Blakeney for the civil claims under the FDCPA alleged against him in the complaint, and
(c) GB Services for the civil claims under the FDCPA alleged against it in the complaint. This settlement is based on an analysis of the Settling Defendants' limited ability to pay.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Partial Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed IN whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the Partial Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is issuing an order approving the application dated April 24, 2026, filed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS), on behalf of Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Troy ParentCo LLC (Troy ParentCo), and their corporate affiliates (together, Applicants). The application sought NRC consent to the indirect transfer of control of PNM's co-ownership of the Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde), Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as well as the associated general license for the Palo Verde Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) (together, the facility). No physical changes or operational changes to the facility were proposed in the application.
The order was issued on August 18, 2026, and is effective for one year.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-2575 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jason J. Drake, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8378; email:
The text of the order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is the licensed operator and a licensed co-owner of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74 for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde), Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and the general license for the Palo Verde Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) (collectively, the Licenses). Palo Verde is located in Maricopa County, Arizona. The other licensed co-owners (tenants-in-common), Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District; Southern California Edison Company; El Paso Electric Company; Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM); Southern California Public Power Authority; and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, hold possession-only rights for these Licenses (
By application dated April 24, 2026 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML26114A391), APS on behalf of PNM, Troy ParentCo LLC (Troy ParentCo), and their corporate affiliates (together, Applicants) requested, pursuant to Title 10 of the
PNM is one of seven co-owners of Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI. APS operates Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3, and the ISFSI on behalf of the ownership group. According to the application, Applicants requested the indirect transfer of the Licenses so that they can complete a transaction pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 18, 2025 (the “Merger Agreement”). Under the Merger Agreement, TXNM Energy, Inc. (TXNM) and, in turn, PNM, as a wholly owned subsidiary of TXNM would become wholly owned subsidiaries of Troy ParentCo.
Troy ParentCo, a Delaware limited liability company, is a wholly owned, direct subsidiary of Troy IntermediateCo LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, which is a wholly owned, direct subsidiary of Troy TopCo LP (Troy TopCo). Troy TopCo, a Delaware limited partnership, whose general partner is Troy GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is wholly owned by Troy Aggregator LP, a Delaware limited partnership. The general partner of Troy Aggregator LP is BIP Holdings Manager L.L.C. Interests in Troy Aggregator LP are held by passive investors and limited partners that are all investment funds or vehicles directly or indirectly controlled by four entities: (i) BIA GP L.P., (ii) BIA GP NQ L.P., (iii) Blackstone Infrastructure Associates (Lux) S.à.r.l., and/or (iv) BXISA L.L.C. (collectively, Blackstone Infrastructure Management). These entities comprising Blackstone Infrastructure Management are, in turn, indirectly and wholly controlled by Blackstone Inc. (Blackstone). Blackstone is a publicly traded investment firm listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BX) with nearly $1.2 trillion in assets under management.
The transaction affects only upstream corporate ownership and does not modify PNM's assets, obligations, or participation in PVNGS or the ISFSI. Accordingly, after the proposed transaction, there would be no change in the control of the operation of Palo Verde; APS would continue to make all technical decisions that do not require approval from all owners of Palo Verde. No physical changes or operational changes were proposed in the application.
A notice of consideration of approval of the application and opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene on the application was published in the
Under 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, no license for a production or utilization facility or ISFSI, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed indirect transfer of control of PNM's possession-only non-operating interests in the licenses is acceptable. The proposed transferee is qualified to be the indirect holder of the licenses, and the indirect transfer of the licenses is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
The findings set forth above are supported by an NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this Order, which is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML26197A235.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80 and 10 CFR 72.50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application regarding the proposed indirect transfer of control is approved for Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 and the Palo Verde ISFSI.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after receipt of all required regulatory approvals of the proposed indirect transfer action, the applicant shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of such receipt prior to the closing of the indirect transfer. Should the proposed indirect transfer not be completed within 1 year from the date of this Order, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, that upon written application and for good cause shown, such date may be extended by order.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated April 24, 2026, and the NRC staff safety evaluation dated the same date as this Order, which are available for public inspection electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at
Dated: August 18, 2026.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 2a-5 (17 CFR 270.2a-5) under the Investment Company Act (the “Act”) provides the requirements for determining in good faith the fair value of the investments of a registered investment company or companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies under the Investment Company Act (“BDCs” and, collectively, “funds”) for purposes of section 2(a)(41) of the Investment Company Act and rule 2a-4 thereunder. Under rule 2a-5, fair value as determined in good faith requires assessing and managing material risks associated with fair value determinations; selecting, applying, and testing fair value methodologies; and overseeing and evaluating any pricing services used. Rule 2a-5 also permits a fund's board to designate a “valuation designee” to perform fair value determinations. The valuation designee can be the adviser of the fund or an officer of an internally managed fund.
Rule 31a-4 (17 CFR 270.34a-1) contains the recordkeeping requirements associated with rule 2a-5. Specifically, registered investment companies and BDCs, or their advisers, are required to maintain appropriate documentation to support fair value determinations made pursuant to rule 2a-5.
Compliance with rule 31a-4 is mandatory for any fund that needs to determine fair value under the Act. To the extent that records that are required to be created and maintained under this rule are provided to the Commission in connection with examinations or investigations, such information will be kept confidential subject to the provisions of applicable law.
There are approximately 10,047 funds that are required to comply with rule 31a-4. It is estimated that rule 31a-4 imposes an annual time burden of approximately 36 hours with an annual time cost of $15,984 per fund, resulting in total annual time burden (across all 10,047 funds) of 361,692 hours at a cost of $160,591,348.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
The Exchange makes this filing to correct an internal cross-reference error in IEX 23.150, which was inadvertently introduced by a recent rule change.
Currently, Rule 23.150(h)(1) refers to “Away Markets (as defined by 22.160(a)(8),” when the definition of “Away Markets” it is cross-referencing is in Rule 22.160(a)(7). Rule 22.160 (Market Opening Procedures) was recently modified to replace IEX's price discovery auction opening process for option series with a simpler deterministic midpoint crossing process opening process.
IEX notes that the proposed change to this internal cross-reference does not substantively modify system functionality or processes on the Exchange, but solely corrects an incorrect internal cross-reference.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
Specifically, IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because it will provide increased clarity in the Exchange's rules.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As described in the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections, this rule filing merely proposes to correct one internal cross-reference error introduced by a recent rule filing. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather would modify Exchange rules to update an internal cross-reference. Since the proposal does not substantively modify system functionality or processes on the Exchange, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to update its Fees Schedule in connection with binary options that overlie the Mini-S&P 500 Index (“XSP binary options”); specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain standard transaction fees in connection with XSP binary options and exclude XSP binary options from certain fees programs. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update its Fees Schedule in connection with XSP binary options.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain standard transaction fees in connection with XSP binary options (“XSPBX”), as follows:
• Adopts fee code D1, appended to all Customer (capacity “C”) orders in XSPBX with a premium price less than $0.04 or greater than $0.96 and assesses a fee of $0.04 per contract;
• Adopts fee code D2, appended to all Customer (capacity “C”) orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.04 to $0.09 or $0.91 to $0.96 and assesses a fee of $0.08 per contract;
• Adopts fee code D3, appended to all Customer (capacity “C”) orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.10 to $0.24 or $0.76 to $0.90 and assesses a fee of $0.20 per contract;
• Adopts fee code D4, appended to all Customer (capacity “C”) orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.25 to $0.75 and assesses a fee of $0.30 per contract;
• Adopts fee code N1, appended to all Clearing Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) (capacity “F”), Non-Clearing TPH Affiliates (capacity “L”),
• Adopts fee code N2, appended to all Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.04 to $0.09 or $0.91 to $0.96 and assesses a fee of $0.15 per contract;
• Adopts fee code N3, appended to all Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.10 to $0.24 or $0.76 to $0.90 and assesses a fee of $0.25 per contract;
• Adopts fee code N4, appended to all Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker orders in XSPBX with a premium price of $0.25 to $0.75 and assesses a fee of $0.35 per contract;
• Adopts fee code H1, appended to all electronic Cboe Options Market-Maker/Designated Primary Market-Maker (“DPM”)/Lead Market-Maker (“LMM”) (“Market-Maker”) (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX taking liquidity, with a premium price less than $0.04 or greater than $0.96 and assesses a fee of $0.10 per contract;
• Adopts fee code H2, appended to all electronic Market-Maker (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX taking liquidity, with a premium price of $0.04 to $0.09 or $0.91 to $0.96 and assesses a fee of $0.15 per contract;
• Adopts fee code H3, appended to all electronic Market-Maker (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX taking liquidity, with a premium price of $0.10 to $0.24 or $0.76 to $0.90 and assesses a fee of $0.25 per contract;
• Adopts fee code H4, appended to all electronic Market-Maker (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX taking liquidity, with a premium price of $0.25 to $0.75 and assesses a fee of $0.35 per contract;
• Adopts fee code HA, appended to all electronic Market-Maker (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX adding liquidity, and assesses a fee of $0.05 per contract; and
• Adopts fee code HM, appended to all manual Market-Maker (capacity “M”) orders in XSPBX and assesses a fee of $0.15 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt and append to fee tables as applicable and needed proposed Footnote 24 (currently marked as Reserved), which provides that XSPBX options are excluded from the following programs: Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table, Volume Incentive Program, Break-Up Credits, Affiliate Volume Plan, Marketing Fee, Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap, Customer Large Trade Discount, Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program, Floor Broker Sliding Scale Supplemental Rebate Program, Order Router Subsidy Program, and Complex Order Router Subsidy Program.
First, the Exchange proposes to exclude XSPBX options from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, which offers credits on Market-Maker orders where a Market-Maker achieves certain volume thresholds based on total national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols, excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP and FLEX Micros during the calendar month. Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale table to provide that volume thresholds are based on total national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros during the calendar month, and that it applies in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros. The proposed rule change also updates Footnote 10 (appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale) to provide that the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale applies to Liquidity Provider (Exchange Market-Maker, DPM and LMM) transaction fees in all products except (1) Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros, (2) volume executed in open outcry, (3) volume executed via AIM Responses; and (4) volume executed via Market-Maker Simple AIM Contra orders in equity, ETF and ETN products.
The proposed rule change also updates Footnote 44 (appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table) to exclude XSPBX volume from the program by providing (in relevant part) that the Make Rate under the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table be derived from a Liquidity Provider's electronic volume the previous month in all symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, SPEQX, SPESG, XSPBX, and XSP.
The proposed rule change updates the Volume Incentive Program (“VIP”) table to exclude XSPBX volume from the VIP, which currently offers a per contract credit for certain percentage threshold levels of monthly Customer volume in all underlying symbols, excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, and FLEX Micros. The proposed rule change also amends Footnote 36 (appended to the VIP table) to reflect the proposed exclusion of XSPBX from the VIP by providing (in relevant part) that: the Exchange shall credit each TPH the per contract amount resulting from each public customer (“C” capacity code) order transmitted by that TPH which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros, QCC trades, public customer to public customer electronic complex order executions, and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Rule 5.67, provided the TPH meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Volume Incentive Program (VIP) table; the percentage thresholds are calculated based on the percentage of national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros entered and executed over the course of the month; and in the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros for the entire trading day. The Exchange also proposes to update the related Affiliate Volume Plan Program (“AVP”) table to append proposed Footnote 24 and exclude XSPBX from the program.
The proposed rule change excludes XSPBX options from the list of products eligible to receive Break-Up Credits in orders executed in AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM, and FLEX SAM, by amending the Break-Up Credits table to exclude XSPBX along with the products currently excluded—Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, and FLEX Micros.
The Exchange proposes to exclude XSPBX options from the Marketing Fee Program by updating the Marketing Fee table to provide that the marketing fee will be assessed on transactions of Market-Makers (including DPMs and LMMs), resulting from customer orders at the per contract rate provided above on all classes of equity options, options on ETFs, options on ETNs and index options, except that the marketing fee shall not apply to Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, XSP, XSPBX, SPEQX, SPESG, NANOS, FLEX Micros or Underlying Symbol List A. The Exchange notes that, in this way, XSPBX options will be treated as most of the Exchange's other exclusively listed products that are currently excluded from the Marketing Fee Program.
The Exchange proposes to exclude XSPBX options from the Floor Broker
The Exchange next proposes to exclude XSPBX options from eligibility for the Order Router Subsidy (“ORS”) and Complex Order Router Subsidy (“CORS”) Programs, in which Participating TPHs or Participating Non-Cboe TPHs may receive a payment from the Exchange for every executed contract routed to the Exchange through their system in certain classes. Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the ORS/CORS Program tables to provide that ORS/CORS participants whose total aggregate non-customer ORS and CORS volume is greater than 0.25% of the total national volume (excluding volume in options classes included in Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, or FLEX Micros) will receive an additional payment for all executed contracts exceeding that threshold during a calendar month, and updates Footnotes 29 and 30 (appended to the ORS/CORS Program tables) to accordingly provide that Cboe Options does not make payments under the program with respect to executed contracts in options classes included in Underlying Symbols List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, XSPBX, or FLEX Micros.
The Exchange also proposes to exclude Non-Customer complex orders in XSPBX options from the Complex Surcharge by amending Footnote 35 (appended to the Complex Surcharge) to provide that the Complex Surcharge applies per contract per side surcharge for noncustomer complex order executions that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book (“COB”) and auction responses in the Complex Order Auction (“COA”) and AIM in all classes except CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP, XSPBX, FLEX Micros, Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange also proposes to exclude Firm (
The Exchange also proposes to exclude XSPBX volume from the Customer Large Trade Discount, which provides a discount in the form of a cap on transaction fees for certain Customer executions.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 6 which provides that, in the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options that lasts longer than 60 minutes, the Exchange will adjust the national volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, CBTX, MBTX, MGTN, MRUT, NANOS, DJX, SPEQX, SPESG, XSP, and FLEX Micros for the entire trading day, to include XSPBX in the list of underlying symbols excluded.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Fees Schedule in connection with standard transaction rates for XSPBX transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, and reflect the unique economic and structural characteristics of binary options. Unlike standard options, where premiums can range from near zero to multiples of the underlying price, binary options have a fixed $1.00 maximum payout and a premium that is inherently bounded between $0.00 and $1.00, with the premium directly reflecting the market's assessed probability that the binary outcome will occur. The Exchange designed the proposed fee structure to account for this distinct economic profile. First, the Exchange believes the tiered fee structure is reasonable because it keeps low-probability contracts economically viable. By assessing lower fees on contracts at the extreme ends of the premium range (
The Exchange believes the proposal creates a fee structure that treats the two sides of a binary contract symmetrically. For example, a contract trading at $0.30 and a contract trading at $0.70 reflect mirror-image risk profiles and are assessed the same fee under the proposed structure. The Exchange believes this symmetrical treatment is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it avoids creating artificial incentives to favor one side of a binary contract over the other based solely on fee considerations. The Exchange further believes the premium-based fee structure calibrated more accurately reflects the true economics of each transaction and is therefore a more appropriate and equitable basis for assessing fees than a flat notional-based charge.
Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation that exists today for other products. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they apply uniformly within each participant category, as applicable.
The Exchange believes the proposed Customer fees are reasonable because they are set at levels designed to encourage Customer participation in XSPBX, which benefits all market participants by contributing to a liquid and competitive marketplace. The tiered fee structure, which scales with premium price, reflects the varying economic value and risk associated with transactions at different premium levels. Options with premiums at the extremes of the pricing range (
The Exchange believes the proposed Non-Customer, Non-Market-Maker fees are reasonable and equitably allocated. These participants, including Clearing TPHs, Non-Clearing TPH Affiliates, Broker-Dealers, Joint-Back Office participants, Non-TPH Market-Makers, and Professionals generally trade for their own accounts or in a professional capacity and are assessed modestly higher fees than Customers, consistent with the Exchange's longstanding practice of assessing lower fees on Customers to encourage retail participation. The tiered structure mirrors that of the Customer fees and applies uniformly to all Non-Customer, Non-Market-Maker participants, ranging from $0.10 per contract at the extreme premium tier to $0.35 per contract at the mid-range premium tier.
The Exchange also believes the proposed electronic Market-Maker taker fees, which are commensurate with those assessed to other Non-Customer participants, are reasonable because Market-Makers that remove liquidity from the Exchange contribute to price discovery and execution quality in a similar way as Non-Customer, Non-Market Maker participants.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees to Market-Makers orders in XSPBX that are executed electronically and add liquidity because these lower fees are intended to incent Market-Makers to trade more on the Exchange, which benefits all participants by contributing to tighter spreads and a more competitive marketplace. The Exchange believes the proposed fee for manual Market-Maker orders in XSPBX is reasonable as it reflects the different cost structure associated with manual order handling and is consistent with how the Exchange treats manual Market-Maker activity in other products.
The Exchange believes the proposed adoption of Footnote 24, which excludes XSPBX from certain Exchange fee programs and incentives, is reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes these exclusions are reasonable because XSPBX is a newly listed product with a unique structure. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to assess straightforward transaction fees for XSPBX upon initial listing and notes that similar exclusions apply to other proprietary products on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not alter any of the existing programs, but instead, merely proposes not to include transactions in XSPBX options in those programs.
The Exchange believes that excluding XSPBX options transactions from certain fees programs is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the programs will equally not apply to, or exclude in the same manner, all market participants' orders in XSPBX options. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not alter any of the existing program rates or volume calculations, but instead, merely proposes not to include transactions in XSPBX options in those programs and volume calculations. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude XSPBX options from the Complex Surcharge because the proposed surcharge exclusions will provide consistency between the fees assessed for orders in other proprietary products, including XSP and Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendment to Footnote 6, which adds XSPBX to the list of underlying symbols excluded from the national volume adjustment applied in the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other interruption of electronic trading lasting longer than 60 minutes, is reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory. Further, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to similarly exclude XSPBX given that it is a binary options product with a distinct structure and trading profile that differs from standard equity and index options. The proposed exclusion applies uniformly to all participants trading XSPBX and is therefore not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange acknowledges that XSPBX is a proprietary product available exclusively on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed standard transaction fees for XSPBX apply uniformly to all participants within each capacity and, with respect to Market-Makers by execution method and by whether the order adds or removes liquidity, and are structured consistently across those categories in a manner that reflects each participant's role in the marketplace, as described above. The exclusion of XSPBX from certain fee programs, surcharge, and incentives similarly applies uniformly to all participants trading XSPBX.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees assessed apply to Exchange proprietary products, which are traded exclusively on the Exchange. As stated above, the Exchange notes that market participants retain the ability to migrate activity to economically similar products available at other venues.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 433 (17 CFR 230.433) governs the use and filing of free writing prospectuses with respect to the securities of an issuer that are the subject of a registration statement that has been filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
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 Fee Schedule to amend the required criteria under Retail Sub-Dollar Liquidity Removal Tier 1.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 18 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
Currently, the Exchange charges a standard fee of 0.28% of the total dollar value of the transaction for executions of Retail Orders
The proposed new alternative criteria is intended to encourage additional Members to strive to qualify for the Retail Sub-Dollar Liquidity Removal Tier by providing a new alternative criteria that includes a lower overall Retail ADAV threshold, as well as a reasonable April 2026 Step-Up Retail ADAV threshold, each of which is designed to encourage the submission of additional liquidity-adding orders in Retail Sub-Dollar securities to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. 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, 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.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding and/or liquidity-removing orders to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes that the Retail Sub-Dollar Liquidity Removal Tier 1, as modified by the proposed change to the required criteria under such tier, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for these same reasons, as such tier continues to provide Members with incremental incentives to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange, is available to all Members on an equal basis, and is designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow, including liquidity-adding orders, to the Exchange in order to qualify for the discounted fee for executions of Removed Sub-Dollar Retail Volume, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all Members. The Exchange believes that the discounted fee for executions of Removed Sub-Dollar Retail Volume remains commensurate with the required criteria under such tier, as modified, and is reasonably related to the market quality benefits that such tier is designed to achieve.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including displayed, liquidity-adding and/or liquidity-removing orders in Retail securities priced below $1.00 per share to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to amend the required criteria under the Retail Sub-Dollar Liquidity Removal Tier would impose any burden on intramarket competition because such change will apply to all Members uniformly, and the opportunity to qualify for that discounted fee is available to all Members. As described above, the Exchange believes that, after giving effect to the change proposed herein, the required criteria under the Retail Sub-Dollar Liquidity Removal Tier 1 is commensurate with the corresponding reduced fee under such tier and reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market quality that such tier is designed to promote. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including 17 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 14% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to Added Displayed Volume and Removed Sub-Dollar Retail Volume and market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes represent a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to generate additional revenue with respect to its transaction pricing and to encourage the submission of additional order flow to the Exchange through volume and quoting-based tiers, which have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that offer similar pricing incentives to market participants.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) 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 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.
On June 29, 2026, NYSE American LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE American”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The purpose of Form N-54A is to notify the Commission that the investment company making the notification elects to be subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act, enabling the Commission to administer those provisions of the Investment Company Act to such companies.
The Commission staff estimates that on average approximately 25 business development companies file these notifications each year.
The Commission staff estimates that there is no additional cost burden associated with the form other than the cost of the burdens identified above.
The collection of information under Form N-54A is mandatory. The information provided by the form is not kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled: “Custody of securities with members of national securities exchanges.” Rule 17f-1 provides that any registered management investment company (“fund”) that wishes to place its assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member may do so only under a written contract that must be ratified initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's board of directors. The written contract also must contain certain specified provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent public accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the exchange member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The rule requires the written contract and the certificate of each examination to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.
Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 1 response and spends an average of 3.5 hours annually in complying with the rule's requirements. Commission staff estimates that on an annual basis it takes: (i) 0.5 hours for the board of directors
Funds that rely on rule 17f-1 generally use a lawyer to prepare the custodial contract for the board's review and to transmit the contract to the Commission. Commission staff estimates the cost of a lawyer to perform these tasks for a fund each year is $1,548.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information required by rule 17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 163 (17 CFR 230.163) provides an exemption from Section 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to eliminate Customer and Professional Customer fees and introduce a Floor Broker incentive for trading in certain MSCI related Index Options. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective August 11, 2026. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange lists a number of index options for which an MSCI index is the underlying security (
Currently, the Exchange imposes a fee of $0.25 per contract for Customer and Professional Customer manual executions in MXEA and MXEF.
The Exchange proposes to lower these fees to $0.00.
The elimination of the fees related to Customer and Professional Customer manual transactions in MSCI Options
The rebate reflects the fact that MXEA and MXEF are separate and distinct products from the remainder of the MSCI Index Options with unique characteristics, which, since their initial listing on February 25, 2026, MXEA and MXEF have shown promising levels of interest and liquidity. The Exchange believes that a rebate focused on these two products will enhance that interest and provide for more robust liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the elimination of the fees and the rebate will incentivize activity associated with the MSCI Options on the Exchange. Any increase in such activity would create more trading opportunities for all market participants and would, in turn, attract additional order flow to the Exchange, further contributing to a deeper, more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly available information and, excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees. In response to this competitive marketplace, the Exchange proposes to eliminate fees charged for MSCI Index Options as an incentive to create more trading opportunities on the Exchange for all market participants in these products. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange and increased order flow would increase opportunities for execution of other trading interest.
Similarly, the Exchange also believes the proposed rebate for Floor Broker activity in MXEA and MXEF is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits because the proposed rebate is equally available to all Floor Brokers which can try to earn the proposed rebate, or not. In addition, the rebate is intended to address the unique characteristics of MXEA and MXEF that, since their initial listing, have shown promising levels of interest and liquidity. The Exchange believes [sic] will be enhanced by the rebate, providing for more robust liquidity. As such, the rebate is intended to attract more activity to the Exchange. This increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, accordingly, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
Finally, the changes do not unfairly discriminate between market participants. Specifically, as it relates to the elimination of the fees related to all MSCI options, the Exchange believes that Customer and Professional Customer order flow has been integral in attracting liquidity and trading interest in the MSCI Options. Moreover, as noted above, the elimination of the relevant fees is consistent with the fees charged by the Exchange for manual transactions in non-MSCI related options. Similarly, the proposed rebate is available to all Floor Brokers and is intended to encourage the role performed by Floor Brokers in providing robust liquidity to the benefit of all market participants.
Each proposed change takes into account that the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market and that it must, therefore, continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The aim of the proposed changes is to attract more orders to the Exchange, which would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, improve market-wide quality and price discovery.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Pender Real Estate Credit Fund; PC ABL SMA 1, L.P., Pender Capital Management, LLC and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule A to the application.
The application was filed on January 30, 2026, and amended on July 28, 2026.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary and serving the Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. The email should include the file number referenced above. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m., Eastern time, on September 14, 2026, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
The Commission:
Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, or Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' amended application, filed July 28, 2026, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On June 18, 2026, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of adoption of categorical exclusion.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified a categorical exclusion (CATEX) established by the Department of the Air Force (DAF) that it intends to adopt and describes the categories of proposed actions for which the FAA intends to use this CATEX. The FAA has consulted with the DAF, as described herein, and obtained concurrence on FAA's use of this CATEX.
The CATEX identified in the
Ms. Judith Walker, Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-400). Mailing address: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591. Email address
Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (NEPA) to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and the environment, recognizing the profound impact of human activity and the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare of humankind. (42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331). NEPA seeks to ensure that agencies consider the environmental effects of their proposed major actions in their decision-making processes.
To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the appropriate level of review of any major federal action—an environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA), or categorical exclusion (CATEX) (42 U.S.C. 4336). If a proposed action is likely to have significant environmental effects, the agency must prepare an EIS and document its decision in a record of decision (42 U.S.C. 4336). If the proposed action is not likely to have significant environmental effects or the effects are unknown, the agency may instead prepare an EA, which involves a more concise analysis and process than an EIS (42 U.S.C. 4336). Following the EA, the agency may conclude that the action will have no significant effects and document that conclusion in a finding of no significant impact. If the analysis concludes that the action is likely to have significant effects, then an EIS is required.
Pursuant to NEPA, a Federal agency can also establish CATEXs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in their agency NEPA procedures (42 U.S.C. 4336e(1)). If an agency determines that a CATEX covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect. If no extraordinary circumstances are present, the agency may apply the CATEX to the proposed action without preparing an EA or EIS (42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2)). FAA considers extraordinary circumstances pursuant to FAA Order 1050.1G, Federal Aviation Administration National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, dated June 30, 2025, Appendix B, Extraordinary Circumstances and Categorical Exclusion. If an extraordinary circumstance exists, the agency nevertheless may apply the categorical exclusion if the agency conducts an analysis and determines that the proposed action does not in fact have the potential to result in significant effects notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstance, or the agency modifies the proposed action to
Federal agencies may establish a category of CATEX via one of two methods—establishing an original CATEX under the CEQ's guidance, Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, April 9, 2026. Subject: Establishing, Revising, Adopting, and Applying Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act, or via adopting a CATEX from another Federal agency.
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to adopt another Federal agency's CATEX (42 U.S.C. 4336c). To use another agency's CATEXs under section 109, the adopting agency must identify the relevant CATEX listed in the establishing agency's NEPA procedures that covers the adopting agency's category of proposed actions or related actions; consult with the establishing agency to ensure that the proposed adoption of the CATEX is appropriate for the category of actions; identify to the public the CATEX that the adopting agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and document adoption of the CATEX (42 U.S.C. 4336c); (FAA Order 1050.1G, Section 1.4(d) Adopting CATEX's from other Federal agencies). This
FAA is adopting a CATEX established by the DAF and listed in the Department of War NEPA Procedures Appendix A, Supersonic flying operations over land and above 30,000 feet MSL, or over water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15 nautical miles from land. Department of War National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, Appendix A, II Department of the Air Force, DoW A116-34. April 30, 2026.
FAA expects to use the above identified CATEX to approve Special Flight Authorization (SFA) applications for supersonic flight testing that are overland and above 30,000 feet MSL or over water, above 10,000 feet MSL, and more than 15 nautical miles from land. DAF currently utilizes the following approved supersonic corridors: Edwards Air Force Base, California; Bell X-1 High Altitude Supersonic Corridors; Black Mountain High Altitude Supersonic Corridors; PIRA Supersonic Corridor; Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; Overland R-2914A to R-2915A (Test Area B-70). The categories of actions described herein are activities which are within the scope of the establishing agency's (DAF's) CATEX. FAA may also expand the use of the CATEX identified in Section II to activities other than SFA applications that are within the parameters of the establishing agency's CATEX where appropriate and would consult with the establishing agency, as needed. The CATEX the FAA is adopting from DAF reads: “Supersonic flying operations over land and above 30,000 feet MSL, or over water and above 10,000 feet MSL and more than 15 nautical miles from land”. The FAA adopts CATEX DoW A116-34 from DAF consistent with all substantive and procedural limitations applied by DAF. This adoption, consistent with DAF procedures, requires that application of the CATEX to a specific federal action be done via documented CATEX in certain circumstances. Therefore, when DAF's CATEX requires documentation to apply the CATEX, the FAA Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS) shall comply with the requirements detailed in FAA Order 1050.1G, § 1.4(f)(3), Documentation of CATEX determinations.
The FAA has NEPA implementing procedures to guide its analysis of extraordinary circumstances. Further, FAA will apply DAF's extraordinary circumstances, located in part 1.4(d) of the department's NEPA implementing procedures, Department of War National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, and any subsequent revisions thereto, if different from the FAA's. If an extraordinary circumstance is present, the FAA will determine whether it is possible to avoid significant effects. The FAA EPS must document application of any mitigations consistent with FAA Order 1050.1G. If FAA cannot apply a CATEX to a particular proposed action due to extraordinary circumstances, FAA will prepare an EA or EIS, consistent with FAA NEPA Implementing Procedures dated 30 June 2025.
FAA consulted with DAF between 3 December 2025 and 29 June 2026. During the consultation, the agencies discussed whether the category of FAA proposed actions would be appropriately covered by the CATEX identified above; the extraordinary circumstances that FAA should consider before applying the CATEX to FAA's proposed actions; the requirement to evaluate, before using the above listed DAF CATEX, the integral elements of the CATEX's availability for use as defined in DAF's NEPA procedures (identified in Section II above); and what documentation FAA should complete when applying the CATEX. The agencies also considered past use of the CATEX by the DAF, including how often these agencies modified a proposed action or prepared an EA or EIS for a proposed action otherwise covered by the CATEX. At the conclusion of that process, the agencies determined that FAA's proposed use of the CATEX as described in this notice is appropriate.
This notice documents adoption of the CATEX listed in Section II in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 4336c(4), and is available for use by FAA, effective immediately.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury
Notice of Meeting
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held as a virtual video conference via the Microsoft Teams platform.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Fred N. Smith, Jr. by email at
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section
The public is invited to attend the meeting virtually, or by phone, and may provide oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to meeting structure and time limitations, advance registration is required to attend or make public comments during the meeting. To register and receive meeting access information, please contact Fred N. Smith, Jr. at the contact information above no later than Friday, September 11, 2026.
Meeting materials, including the agenda and any handouts, will be made available prior to the meeting at
The agenda will include a committee discussion of new and continuing issues and other activities related to the new TAP year.
National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by September 23, 2026
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
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