Agricultural Marketing Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; correction and technical amendment.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the
Effective September 2, 2026.
Aaron Gottesman, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
OPM published a final rule on August 3, 2026 (91 FR 49104; FR Doc. 2026-15654), establishing 5 CFR part 751 and making related amendments. The document contained clerical errors, including references to “this subpart” in a part that contains no subparts, a doubled conjunction in § 751.102(c)(2), a misplaced paragraph structure in § 751.103(b), the use in § 751.104(c) of the term “responsible agency,” which is undefined in part 751 (the term is defined only in § 731.503(b)(2), for purposes of part 731, subpart E), and minor typographical errors. This document corrects those errors. The corrections are non-substantive and make no change to the rights or obligations established by the final rule.
This document also amends § 315.909(b). The final rule revised § 315.908(b) to provide that an employee who alleges that an action under subpart I of part 315 was based on partisan political reasons or marital status may appeal to OPM under new 5 CFR part 751, and § 751.101(e) establishes that the procedures in part 751 are the sole means of appealing a covered action while preserving matters within the independent jurisdiction of other bodies.
The last sentence of § 315.909(b), however, continues to state that an employee who believes an action under subpart I was based on improper discrimination or other prohibited practices under 5 U.S.C. 2302 may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That sentence is inconsistent with revised §§ 315.908(b) and 751.101(e), and this document conforms it, effective concurrently with the final rule. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), OPM finds that good cause exists to make this technical, conforming amendment without prior notice and comment because notice and comment are unnecessary for a non-substantive change that conforms the paragraph to a rule previously promulgated; for the same reasons, and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for the amendment to take effect with the underlying rule on September 2, 2026.
OPM has examined this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. For the reasons discussed above, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Government employees.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
In FR Doc. 2026-15654, appearing on page 49072 in the
(b)
(i) The name of the appellant and of the agency whose action the appellant is appealing;
(ii) A statement identifying the agency action taken against the appellant and stating the reasons for taking the action;
(iii) All documents contained in the agency record of the action;
(iv) Designation of and signature by the authorized agency representative; and
(v) Any other documents or responses requested by OPM.
(2) The agency's 30 days to respond begins upon service of the appeal.
(3) The agency record of the action shall include, at a minimum:
(i) All documents considered or relied upon by the agency in taking the action;
(ii) The notice of action and effective date;
(iii) Documents showing the appellant's appointment, service history, and probationary or trial period status;
(iv) Any written certification, noncertification, or failure-to-certify record under 5 CFR part 11;
(v) Any documents supporting the agency's basis for the action under appeal; and
(vi) A certification that the agency has produced the complete record considered by the deciding official or otherwise relied upon by the agency.
(4) The agency must produce the complete agency record to OPM. The agency must serve the appellant with the agency record, except that the agency may redact or withhold information from the copy served on the appellant to the extent necessary to comply with the Privacy Act, applicable legal privileges, classified information or national security requirements, protective orders issued by OPM, and any other applicable limitation on disclosure required by law.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM amends 5 CFR part 315 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302. E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, unless otherwise noted; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729. Secs. 315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 3651 and 3652. Secs. 315.602 and 315.604 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 315.603 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151. Sec. 315.605 also issued under E.O. 12034, 43 FR 1917, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 111. Sec. 315.606 also issued under E.O. 11219, 30 FR 6381, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 303. Sec. 315.607 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2560. Sec. 315.608 also issued under E.O. 12721, 55 FR 31349, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 293. Sec. 315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(c). Sec. 315.611 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(f). Sec. 315.612 also issued under E.O. 13473, 73 FR 56703, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 241. Sec. 315.613 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 9602. Sec. 315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 52 FR 17537, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 264.
(b) An action which demotes an employee to a lower grade than the one the employee left to accept the supervisory or managerial position, and an action against an employee for reasons other than supervisory or managerial performance, is governed by procedures under part 432 or 752 of this chapter, whichever is applicable. This section does not preclude an employee from filing a complaint, appeal, or other matter within the independent jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Office of Special Counsel, consistent with § 751.101(e) of this chapter.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; correction.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the
Effective September 2, 2026.
Aaron Gottesman, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
OPM published a final rule on August 3, 2026 (91 FR 49178; FR Doc. 2026-15665), amending 5 CFR parts 316, 330, 351, 353, 359, 362, and 430. The document contained typographical and clerical errors, including: amendatory instructions that do not match the current text or structure of the Code of Federal Regulations (instruction 15 directs the addition of § 330.707(w), which already exists as “[Reserved]”; instruction 36 directs revision of introductory text of § 351.802(a), which has no introductory text; and instruction 39 quotes text for removal from § 353.110(a)(1) that does not match the Code of Federal Regulations); incorrect “of this part” references to §§ 11.2 and 11.3 of this title, which are located in 5 CFR part 11; a defective list structure in the definition of “Qualified” in § 330.202 and in § 351.702(a)(4)(iv); and citation-form errors.
This document also corrects typographical and cross-reference errors in provisions of 5 CFR part 316, which the final rule likewise amended: § 316.301(c)(1) refers to a covered position “defined in (2)” rather than “defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section”; § 316.402(b)(4) reads “30 percent of more” rather than “30 percent or more”; § 316.403(b)(1) cites § 316.402(b)(5) as the authority for noncompetitive temporary appointments of disabled veterans, although that paragraph concerns appointment under 31 U.S.C. 732(g) for current and former employees of the General Accounting Office and the correct citation is § 316.402(b)(4), appointment under 5 U.S.C. 3112 (veterans with compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more); § 316.403(b)(2) cites section 4114 of title 38, United States Code, which was repealed by Public Law 102-40 (May 7, 1991) and replaced by section 7405 of title 38, the current authority for temporary appointments of nurses in the Department of Veterans Affairs; and § 316.403(b)(3) ends with a period rather than a semicolon. This document adds
In addition, this rule and the Reduction in Force Appeals final rule published the same day (91 FR 49230) each revised the authority citation for part 351 with differing text; this document conforms instruction 16 to the version published in the Reduction in Force Appeals rule, which includes 5 U.S.C. 1103 and 1104, the provisions supporting the appeals function established in subpart I of part 351. This document corrects those errors before the rule's effective date. The corrections are non-substantive.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Office of Personnel Management.
In FR Doc. 2026-15665, appearing on page 49178 in the
(iv) Acceptable examples of the types of assessments include: structured interviews; a work-related exercise; a custom or generic procedure for measuring an employee's employment or career-related qualifications and interests; a structured resume review; or another assessment, provided that the assessment—
(A) Demonstrates job-related technical skills, abilities, and knowledge; and
(B) Is relevant for the position for which the assessment is developed; and
5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 1302, 2301, 3502, 3503, 38 U.S.C. 4331; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729; 5 CFR 2.2(c). Sec. 351.801 also issued under E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 569.
(iv) Acceptable examples of the types of assessments include: structured interviews; a work-related exercise; a custom or generic procedure for measuring an employee's employment or career-related qualifications and interests; a structured resume review; or another assessment, provided that the assessment—
(A) Demonstrates job-related technical skills, abilities, and knowledge; and
(B) Is relevant for the position for which the assessment is developed.
14. On page 49226, amendatory instruction 36 is corrected to read as follows:
36. Amend § 351.802 by adding introductory text to paragraph (a) and revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows:
15. On page 49226, amendatory instruction 39 is corrected to read as follows:
39. Amend § 353.110 by removing, in paragraph (a)(1), the words “Associate Director for Employment, OPM, 1900 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20415” and adding, in their place, the words “Workforce Policy & Innovation by email at
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; correction.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the
Effective September 2, 2026.
Aaron Gottesman, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
OPM published a final rule on August 3, 2026 (91 FR 49230; FR Doc. 2026-15666), revising subpart I of 5 CFR part 351. The document contained clerical errors, including an imprecise cross-reference in § 351.902(b)(3); a garbled series in § 351.902(c)(6); the use in § 351.904(c) of the term “responsible agency,” which is undefined in part 351 (the term is defined only in § 731.503(b)(2), for purposes of part 731, subpart E); and typographical errors. This document corrects those errors before the rule's effective date. The corrections are non-substantive.
OPM has examined this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. For the reasons discussed above, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
In FR Doc. 2026-15666, appearing on page 49230 in the
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is correcting technical and conforming errors arising from two recent final rules: “Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service,” published February 6, 2026 and effective March 9, 2026, and “Recruitment and Relocation Incentive Waivers,” published December 15, 2025 and effective February 13, 2026. The corrections make no substantive change to the regulations.
Effective August 25, 2026.
Aaron Gottesman, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
On December 15, 2025, OPM published a final rule at 90 FR 57867 (the incentive waivers rule) amending subparts A and B of 5 CFR part 575 to expand agency authority to approve waivers of the payment limitations on recruitment and relocation incentives and to permit recruitment incentive service periods of less than 6 months. That rule became effective February 13, 2026. On February 6, 2026, OPM published a final rule at 91 FR 5580 (the Schedule Policy/Career rule) amending several parts of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including §§ 575.104, 575.204, and 575.304 and the authority citation for part 575, to address incentive payments for employees whose positions are moved into Schedule Policy/Career. That rule became effective March 9, 2026. After publication, OPM identified the technical errors in part 575 described below, each of which has been carried into the Code of Federal Regulations.
First, the Schedule Policy/Career rule revised and republished §§ 575.104, 575.204, and 575.304 (Ineligible categories of employees). In each section, the rule restructured former paragraphs (a) through (d) as paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) in order to add a new paragraph (b) addressing incentive payments for employees whose positions are moved into Schedule Policy/Career. The rule did not, however, conform the internal cross-reference in the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (a)(4) of each section, which continues to refer to “the exclusions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.” Under the revised structure of each section, the exclusions appear in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3); paragraph (b) is not an exclusion; and there is no paragraph (c). This document conforms the cross-reference in each of the three sections.
Second, the parallel paragraphs (b) added to §§ 575.104, 575.204, and 575.304 by the Schedule Policy/Career rule contain two unintended phrasing discrepancies: § 575.104(b)(1) requires the employee to “fulfill that term,” while the parallel provisions at §§ 575.204(b)(1) and 575.304(b)(1) use “fulfill that agreed-upon service period”; and the introductory text of § 575.304(b) reads “Notwithstanding any provision in this subpart,” while §§ 575.104(b) and 575.204(b) read “Notwithstanding any other provision in this subpart.” This document harmonizes the phrasing of these parallel provisions. No difference in meaning was intended or results.
Third, the Schedule Policy/Career rule revised the authority citation for part 575, setting out the citation as it existed before the incentive waivers rule. Because the Schedule Policy/Career rule became effective March 9, 2026, its revision superseded, without discussion, the revised authority citation for part 575 that the incentive waivers rule had made effective February 13, 2026. This document revises the authority citation for part 575 to restore the formulation adopted in the incentive waivers rule. The authorities cited are identical in substance under either formulation.
The incentive waivers rule revised § 575.110(a) to remove the requirement that a recruitment incentive service period be at least 6 months, permitting agencies to establish service periods of less than 6 months but not more than 4 years. The rule did not make the conforming amendment to the definition of “Service agreement” in § 575.102, which continues to describe “a specified period of employment of not less than 6 months or more than 4 years.” This document conforms the definition to § 575.110(a) as revised, consistent with the parallel definition in § 575.202.
In § 575.109(a), the introductory text joins the phrase “An agency may pay a recruitment incentive” to paragraph (a)(1) with a hyphen rather than an em dash. The error predates the two rules described above and appears in the official annual edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. This document replaces the hyphen with an em dash, consistent with the parallel provision at § 575.209(a).
OPM finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue these correcting amendments without prior notice and opportunity for comment, because the amendments merely conform cross-references, definitions, parallel phrasing, and punctuation to regulatory text previously adopted after notice and comment, and make no substantive change to the regulations; notice and comment are therefore unnecessary. For the same reason, OPM finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make these corrections effective upon publication.
OPM has examined this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. For the reasons discussed above, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Government employees, Wages.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Accordingly, OPM corrects 5 CFR part 575 by making the following correcting amendments:
5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(2), 5307. Subparts A and B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5753. Subpart C also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5754. Subpart D also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5755. Subpart E also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5757; sec. 207, Pub. L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1780 (5 U.S.C. 5307 note).
Office of Personnel Management.
Final rule; correction.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a final rule in the
Effective September 2, 2026.
Aaron Gottesman, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
OPM published a final rule on August 3, 2026 (91 FR 49034; FR Doc. 2026-15650), revising subpart E of 5 CFR part 731. The document contained clerical errors, including missing spaces in § 731.504(c); a limiting principle miscast as an item in the list of sanctions in § 731.506(b); a cross-reference in § 731.505(b) that erroneously included paragraph (d) of that section, which provides for the assignment of an administrative judge rather than an administrative law judge; and citation-form and capitalization errors. In addition, the preamble relies on 5 U.S.C. 3302, which was inadvertently omitted from the revised authority citation for part 731. This document corrects those errors before the rule's effective date. The corrections are non-substantive.
OPM has examined this rule under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. For the reasons discussed above, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Office of Personnel Management.
In FR Doc. 2026-15650, appearing on page 49034 in the
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends multiple coordinates used to describe restricted areas R-2505, R-2524, R-2508, and R-2515 in California. The amendments are administrative in nature and do not expand any outer boundaries, altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Effective date 0901 UTC, October 29, 2026.
A copy of this final rule and all background material may be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “unnecessary.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action amends multiple coordinates used to describe restricted areas R-2505, R-2524, R-2508, and R-2515 in California. The amendments are administrative in nature and do not expand any outer boundaries, altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas. This action will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations as it does not change any outer boundaries, altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas. The updated coordinates only impact inner boundaries of subdivided areas. The action constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by modifying the coordinates used to describe restricted areas R-2505, R-2524, R-2508, and R-2515 in California.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Rulemaking and Guidance Procedure” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is anticipated to have a minimal economic impact, as it only affects air traffic
The FAA has determined that this action of amending multiple coordinates used to describe restricted areas R-2505, R-2524, R-2508, and R-2515 in California qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321,
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35°36′00″ N, long. 117°26′03″ W; to lat. 35°36′00″ N, long. 117°16′55″ W; to lat. 35°47′46″ N, long. 117°16′55″ W; to lat. 35°47′46″ N, long. 116°55′23″ W; to lat. 35°37′45″ N, long. 116°55′23″ W; to lat. 35°19′00″ N, long. 116°55′23″ W; to lat. 35°15′56″ N, long. 116°55′23″ W; to lat. 35°15′56″ N, long. 117°26′03″ W; to lat. 35°27′40″ N, long. 117°26′03″ W; to the point of beginning.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; DHS.
Establishment of Customs-Enforcement Areas.
This document sets forth the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) declaration establishing four Customs-Enforcement Areas (CEA) in the near shore waters of South Florida, Central/Southern California, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf Coast of Texas. This action will further CBP efforts to interdict hovering vessels
The Customs-Enforcement Areas described herein are established as of August 25, 2026.
Scott Leach, Director of Marine Operations at (202) 325-2114 or at
This document establishes four Customs-Enforcement Areas (CEAs) in the near shore waters of South Florida, Central/Southern California, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf Coast of Texas. The establishment of these CEAs is necessary to respond to the continuous and active threats presented by hovering vessels in those areas. The underlying legal authority, the need for the CEAs, and a detailed description of the CEA boundaries are described below.
The establishment of CEAs is authorized pursuant to section 1 of the Anti-Smuggling Act of 1935, as amended (49 Stat. 517) (19 U.S.C. 1701) (Anti-Smuggling Act). In general, CEAs can be designated for an area on the high seas (within specified limits) that is outside of, but adjacent to, U.S. customs waters and is in close proximity to where vessels hover to engage in smuggling.
Section 1(a) of the Anti-Smuggling Act states that “whenever the President of the United States finds and declares that at any place or within any area on the high seas adjacent to but outside customs waters any vessel or vessels hover or are being kept off the coast of the United States and that, by virtue of the presence of any such vessel or vessels at such place or within such area, the unlawful introduction or removal into or from the United States of any merchandise or person is being or may be occasioned, promoted, or threatened, the place or area so found and declared shall constitute a customs-enforcement area.” 19 U.S.C. 1701(a).
The term “hovering vessel” means any vessel which is found or kept off the coast of the United States within or without the customs waters, if, from the history, conduct, character, or location of the vessel, it is reasonable to believe that such vessel is being used or may be used to introduce or promote or facilitate the introduction or attempted introduction of merchandise into the United States in violation of the laws respecting the revenue. Anti-Smuggling Act sec. 401(d) (19 U.S.C. 1709(d)).
The statute limits the boundaries of CEAs, stating that “[n]o customs-enforcement area shall include any waters more than one hundred nautical miles from the place or immediate area where the President declares such vessel or vessels are hovering or are being kept, and notwithstanding the foregoing provision, shall not include any waters more than fifty nautical miles outwards from the outer limit of customs waters.” Anti-Smuggling Act sec. 1(a) (19 U.S.C. 1701(a)). In other words, the CEA may extend not more than 100 nautical miles (NM) in either direction up and down the coast from the place or immediate area where hovering vessels are present, and not more than 50 NM out to sea beyond the customs waters.
Although section 1 of the Anti-Smuggling Act vests the authority to establish CEAs in the President, that authority is now vested in the Commissioner of CBP. Executive Order 10289 delegated the President's authority to establish CEAs to the Secretary of the Treasury. E.O. 10289, § 1(b), 16 FR 9499 (published Sept. 19, 1951). With certain exceptions not applicable herein, section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135) (6 U.S.C. 203(1)) transferred all functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the United States Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury, including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Homeland Security further delegated the authority to establish CEAs to the Commissioner of CBP.
Upon the establishment of a CEA pursuant to the Anti-Smuggling Act, customs officers and agents are authorized to enforce applicable U.S. laws within the CEA. Specifically, within the CEA, CBP officers and agents “may go on board of any vessel and examine the vessel and any merchandise or person on board, and bring the same into port.” Anti-Smuggling Act sec. 1(b) (19 U.S.C. 1701(b)). Customs officers and agents may pursue and seize or arrest and otherwise enforce upon any vessel, merchandise, or person in the CEA in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations in the same manner as customs officers and agents are authorized to do at any place in the United States. Anti-Smuggling Act sec. 1(b) (19 U.S.C. 1701(b)). Specifically, within a CEA, customs officers and agents are authorized to enforce 18 U.S.C. 2237, which provides for criminal sanctions against a master, operator, or person in charge of a vessel for various offenses, including failure to heave to, obstruction of boarding, or providing materially false information.
Additionally, section 581(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1581(a)), permits customs officers and agents “at any time to go on board of any vessel . . . at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area . . . and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel . . . and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel . . . and use all necessary force to compel compliance.”
In the last five years and within the areas designated as CEAs identified below, CBP's Air and Marine Operations (AMO) has conducted numerous enforcement actions against hovering vessels. With regard to the areas specifically being designated as a CEA in South Florida alone, AMO seized nearly 77,000 pounds of illegal narcotics; conducted 26,000 apprehensions of illegal aliens and smugglers; and performed 324 search and rescue operations.
The establishment of these CEAs is necessary to respond to the continuous and active threats presented by hovering vessels in those areas. The four CEAs established here would extend the authority of customs officers and agents to enforce applicable U.S. laws from 12 NM to 24 NM from the baseline within the designated CEAs.
The establishment of a CEA that extends enforcement authorities to 24 NM greatly improves CBP's law enforcement effectiveness in CEAs, which are located within critical maritime approaches to the United States. The performance, speed, and technology of modern smuggling vessels limit CBP's ability to respond to illegal activity detected in these areas. The limited distance and fast speeds of these vessels often inhibit the ability to interdict threats to the United States. Expanding the authorities for customs officers and agents to operate 24 NM from baseline within the designated areas, combined with enhanced detection capabilities enabled by new technology, will significantly increase the probability of interdiction and facilitate prosecution of individuals, particularly those using hovering vessels consistent with applicable U.S. law. Authority to interdict vessels 24 NM from baseline will decrease border incursions and more effectively enforce applicable U.S. laws within such designated areas. By extending jurisdiction into high threat areas, CBP can enhance enforcement of applicable U.S. laws as they relate to combatting hovering vessels in the areas defined below.
Additionally, the establishment of CEAs reinforces Executive Order 14165,
The establishment of the CEAs also supports the 2026 National Drug Control Strategy.
By establishing the four CEAs, CBP will increase maritime domain awareness and further disrupt maritime smuggling attempts before they make landfall. Expanded detection and interdiction capabilities will reduce the number of maritime border incursions and allow U.S. Border Patrol to reallocate resources to other focus areas.
Establishing the four CEAs does not close any waters to navigation, impose new reporting or permitting requirements, or require vessels to alter otherwise lawful routes or operations. Vessels operating within the CEAs, however, may be subject to the enforcement authorities made applicable under the Anti-Smuggling Act, including being hailed, stopped, boarded, examined, searched, or brought into port as authorized by law. CBP recognizes that such enforcement activity may in individual cases result in limited operational impacts, including delay, to vessel owners, operators, passengers, and cargo interests. CBP has determined that the possibility of impacts is justified by the need to address the threats described above.
Pursuant to the authority contained in section 1 of the Anti-Smuggling Act of 1935, as amended (49 Stat. 517) (19 U.S.C. 1701) (Anti-Smuggling Act), I, Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, do hereby find and declare:
1. That vessels hover or are being kept off the coast of the United States on the high seas adjacent to but outside customs waters within the areas described as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. That the areas described in paragraph 1 do not include any waters more than 100 NM from the place or immediate area where such vessels are found or kept off the coast of the United States and are hereby declared to be hovering or kept, and do not include any waters more than 50 NM outwards from the outer limit of the customs waters.
3. That, by virtue of the presence of such vessels within the areas described in paragraph 1, the unlawful introduction or removal into or from the United States of merchandise or persons is being or may be occasioned, promoted, or threatened.
4. That all the waters within the areas described in paragraph 1 are in such proximity to such vessels that such unlawful introduction or removal of merchandise or persons may be carried on by or to or from such vessels.
And I do hereby proclaim that under the terms of the Anti-Smuggling Act, the areas described in paragraph 1 constitute customs-enforcement areas, and the provisions of law applying to the high seas adjacent to customs waters shall be enforced in such areas upon any vessel, merchandise, or person found therein, including the Anti-Smuggling Act of 1935 (19 U.S.C. 1701); section 581 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1581); and 18 U.S.C. 2237.
The establishment of each customs-enforcement area described in this document is intended to operate independently. If any customs-enforcement area, provision, boundary, or application of this document is held invalid or is stayed, enjoined, or otherwise made unenforceable, the remainder of this document is intended to remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. For example, if a court enjoins the establishment of one customs-enforcement area, CBP intends that the other customs-enforcement areas remain established and enforceable. Similarly, if a court invalidates a portion of a boundary or a specific application within one customs-enforcement area, CBP intends that the remaining portions and applications remain in effect.
This document is being issued in accordance with DHS Delegation 07010.3, Revision 03.2.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; denying.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are denying an amendment to the Montana regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Montana submitted this proposed amendment to OSM on its own initiative in response to a State law passed by the Montana Legislature (Senate Bill (SB) 392). The proposed amendment would have added a provision requiring equal application of court costs to the prevailing party in contested case proceedings by a court or administrative agency that issues a decision. The proposal would have also amended the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) to refer to the proposed equal application of court costs rule. Finally, SB 392 includes contingencies that apply to the proposed amendment but are not codified into the MCA: codification instructions, a severability clause, an effective date clause, and an applicability statement.
The effective date is September 24, 2026.
Attn: Jeffrey Fleischman, Field Office Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 82602, Telephone: (307) 261-6550, Email:
Section 503(a) of SMCRA permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal implementing regulations.
By letter dated June 22, 2023 (Administrative Record No. MT-043-01), Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Specifically, Montana proposes a new section to MCA at § 82-4-255, which requires the equal application of court costs in contested case proceedings by a court or administrative agency that issues a decision pursuant to § 82-4-2. This proposed section states that a court or administrative agency may award the prevailing party reasonable costs of litigation, including filing fees, attorney fees, and witness costs, but the court or administrative agency may not consider the identities of the parties involved when determining the award. The parties that may be awarded attorney fees include the permittee, permit applicant, agency, public interest litigant, or any other party to the action. The proposal applies equally to all parties in an action and places the burden of proof and persuasion for awarding court costs on the requesting party.
At § 82-4-251(7) of the MCA, Montana proposes that new § 82-4-255 applies to an order issued or administrative proceedings under 82-4-251. And at § 82-4-252(5) of the MCA, Montana proposes any court issuing a final order may award court costs in line with new § 82-4-255.
Finally, SB 392 adds four contingencies to the proposed changes of §§ 82-4-251, 82-4-252, and 82-4-255 that are not codified into the MCA but apply to the sections amended by the legislation. Section 4 of SB 392 states its newly proposed section for equal application of court costs will be codified within Title 82, chapter 4, part 2. Montana later changed this to § 82-4-255 of the MCA. Section 5 of SB 392 states that if any part of SB 392 is invalid, all valid parts are severable and may remain in effect. Section 6 of SB 392 states that the bill is effective upon passage and approval in the Montana legislature. Section 7 of SB 392 states that the bill applies to court actions filed on or after the effective date of SB 392.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the August 7, 2023,
OSM reviewed Montana's submittal according to the requirements of SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.5, 732.15, and 732.17. As described below, we are disapproving Montana's submittal.
Montana's proposed changes under §§ 82-4-251, 82-4-252, and 82-4-255 of the MCA are not in accordance with SMCRA and are inconsistent with the Federal regulations. Through SB 392, Montana proposes to amend MCA §§ 82-4-251, 252, and 255 to require an equal application of court costs when a court or administrative agency issues a final order in an action pursuant to Title 82, chapter 4, part 2 of the MCA. Proposed § 82-4-255 of the MCA states that: (1) a court or administrative agency may award the prevailing party reasonable costs of litigation; (2) the court or administrative agency may not consider the identity of any party, including but not limited to a permittee, permit applicant, agency, public interest litigant, or other party to an action; (3) this section supersedes prior rulings pursuant to private attorney general doctrine; and (4) the provisions apply equally to all parties in an action. Proposed amendments to MCA §§ 82-4-251 and 82-4-252 would require those sections to adhere to MCA § 82-4-255. While we are generally supportive of Montana's attempts to rein in frivolous lawsuits that slow down energy production, following our review, OSM has determined that there are several issues with the proposed amendment when compared to SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
First, proposed § 82-4-255 MCA is inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations. Because § 82-4-255 covers proceedings by a court or administrative agency that issues a decision pursuant to the Montana coal program, both citizen suits and applications for review of an order or notice, investigation, or hearing are covered under § 82-4-255. Under SMCRA, the fees shifting provision for citizen suits, including attorneys fees and court costs, are within section 520(d), and the fee shifting provision for applications for review of an order are contained within section 525(e). Proposed § 82-4-255 MCA limits who can receive awards of court costs to “prevailing parties,” prohibits a judge from considering the identity of any party in its decision, supersedes prior rulings pursuant to private attorney
In contrast to Montana's proposed changes to its fee shifting provision, sections 520(d) and 525(e) of SMCRA do not use the “prevailing parties” standard; instead, they provide for attorney fees whenever the tribunal deems that fees are proper, which is often referred to as the “whenever appropriate” standard. 30 U.S.C. 1276. The House Committee Report that first contained the provision that ultimately became section 525(e) stated the “intention that this subsection not be interpreted or applied in a manner that would discourage good faith actions on the part of interested citizens.” H.R. Rep. No. 218, at 131 (1977). Likewise, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources further explained: “In many, if not most, cases in both the administrative and judicial forum, the citizen who sues to enforce the law, or participates in administrative proceedings to enforce the law, will have little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. . . .
To implement this statutory direction, after
Montana's proposed rule, which would award costs only to prevailing parties, directly conflicts with SMCRA, which uses the “whenever appropriate” rather than the “prevailing party” standard and the Federal regulations, which do not treat all parties equally when it comes to recovery of attorney fees. Under Montana's proposed amendment, a party that has a reasonable, good-faith claim may choose not to bring forward their claim because they could potentially lose and be responsible for both their legal fees as well as the legal fees accrued by the permittee or MDEQ. SMCRA was written to encourage public participation, so the court costs provisions cannot be written or enforced to stifle that participation, unless the party was determined to have acted in bad faith. Montana's proposed regulation expands who must pay court costs beyond “bad faith,” as it would make any party who loses eligible to pay court costs regardless of the circumstances. Thus, Montana's proposed requirement that any prevailing party may receive court costs is inconsistent with SMCRA and the Federal regulations.
Next, proposed changes to §§ 82-4-251 and 82-4-252 MCA are not in accordance with SMCRA and are inconsistent with the Federal regulations. Both proposed changes to §§ 82-4-251(7) and 82-4-252(5) MCA require those sections of the MCA to adhere to section 1 of SB 392. As discussed above, section 1 of SB 392 is inconsistent with the Federal regulations. Therefore, Montana's proposed changes to §§ 82-4-251(7) and 82-4-252(5) MCA must be denied.
Lastly, we note that this proposed amendment has only been interpreted in terms of whether it is in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations. There has been no official determination as to conflicts with other Federal laws.
SB 392 also added contingencies that are not codified into the MCA but that affect the amended parts of the MCA.
Section 4 of SB 392 states what is now new § 82-4-255 is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 82, chapter 4, part 2 of the MCA, and the provisions of § s 82-4-2 will apply to the new section. Codification is a matter left to the states and OSM has no comment on this section.
Section 5 of SB 392 states that if any part of SB 392 is found invalid, the remainder of the bill that is found valid will be severable from the invalid part and remain in effect. While this is legislative language and not part of Montana's surface mining program, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(7) require the Director to consider all relevant information, using the criteria set forth in 30 CFR 732.15, to approve or disapprove the amendment. The Director may approve all or parts of an amendment that are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with the Federal regulations. Here, notwithstanding section 5 of SB 392, OSM has disapproved the entire amendment.
Section 6 of SB 392 states that its provisions are effective on passage and approval of the bill. This provision is contrary to SMCRA and the Federal regulations that state that no change to law or programs can take effect for purposes of a State program until the amendment is approved by the Director. 30 CFR 732.17(g).
Section 7 of SB 392 states that its provisions apply to court action filed on or after the effective date of SB 392. This provision is contrary to SMCRA and the Federal regulations as it forces the changes to be effective before OSM reviews and approves the amendment, as required by 30 CFR 732.17(g), and section 723.17(i)(12) states that all decisions of the Secretary to approve or disapprove a program amendments must be published in the
We asked for initial public comments on the amendment during a public comment period that ended on November 6, 2023. We received 219 written comments during our initial comment period, and we received testimony from 23 individuals at a public hearing held in Billings, MT on November 1, 2023. (Administrative Record No. MT-043-19).
Due to the large number of comments, we have consolidated substantially similar comments to avoid redundancy. Over 200 commenters were opposed to the approval of this amendment and raised similar concerns, which are discussed below. Comments expressing generalized support for or opposition to the proposed amendment, generalized concerns about environmental impacts from mining operations, concerns about the mining industry, fossil fuel use, and the need for the United States to transition to renewable energy, general statements about the public's opposition to SB 392 and prior legislative efforts, comments about HB 576 and the
We do not agree with the commenter that the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 732.17(g) violates SMCRA or that 30 CFR 732.17(g) violates the principles of cooperative federalism as set forth in SMCRA. The Supreme Court of the United States found that SMCRA does not violate the Tenth Amendment.
For the 1997 Ohio amendment, OSM agrees with the commenters assertion that the Ohio amendment allows the Ohio Reclamation Board of Review to award attorney fees for a party's participation, but OSM disagrees that a party's participation allows any party under any circumstance to be awarded attorney fees. The Ohio amendment and regulations, in line with 43 CFR 4.1294,
For the 2006 New Mexico amendment, OSM disagrees with the commenters assertion that New Mexico's approved amendment allows a permittee to be awarded by any party if the permittee initiated the proceedings, prevailed in whole or part, and achieves some degree of success in the case. New Mexico Administrative Code 19.8.12.1204(E)(4) only allows a permittee to be awarded attorney costs when the regulatory authority or person acted in bad faith.
On June 27, 2023, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies that have an actual or potential interest in the Montana program (Administrative Record No. MT-043-05). On August 28, 2023, following the extension of the comment period for a further 60 days, we sent an additional request for comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. MT-043-11). We did not receive any comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On June 27, 2023, we requested comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. MT-043-03, and MT-043-04). On August 28, 2023, following the extension of the comment period for a further 60 days, we sent another request for comments on the amendment (Administrative Record No. MT-043-09, and MT-043-10). Montana SHPO and ACHP did not provide a comment.
Based on the above findings, we are disapproving Montana's proposed amendment (MT-043-FOR) sent to us on June 22, 2023 (Administrative Record No. MT-043-01).
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations, at 30 CFR part 926, that codify disapproval decisions concerning the Montana program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires that a State program must have rules and regulations that are in accordance with SMCRA and consistent with Federal regulations.
This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in public property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments are exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this
This rule has potential Federalism implications, as defined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to “grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible” with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States. Montana, through its approved regulatory program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the state level. This rule disapproves an amendment to the Montana program submitted and drafted by the State to ensure that the State program is “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA and “consistent with” the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Consistent with sections 501(a) and 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1251(a) and 1292(d), respectively) and the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(A), a State program amendment is not a major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 926 is amended as set forth below:
30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) The following amendment submitted by letter dated June 22, 2023, Administrative Record No. MT-043-01, which proposed changes to the Montana approved program at sections 82-4-251, 82-4-252, and 82-4-255 MCA, as a result of the Montana Legislature's 2023 passage of a Senate Bill (SB 392) relating to the awarding of attorney's fees, is not approved.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation (SLR) for certain waters of the Choptank River, near Cambridge, MD. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during a power boat racing event on August 29, 2026 and August 30, 2026. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on August 29, 2026, through 7 p.m. on August 30, 2026. It will only be subject to enforcement, however, from 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on each of those two days.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST1 Zachary Rudy, Sector Maryland NCR Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (410) 576-2693, or email
The Coast Guard received a request under 33 CFR 100.15 from the Kent Narrows Racing Association for a Marine Event Permit to host “Thunder on the Choptank,” a power boat race. The event will be held from 10 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on August 29, 2026 and August 30, 2026, in and around Cambridge, MD. The power boat race will be competing on a designated, marked course.
The COTP, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region is issuing this (SLR) under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race, such as the risk of collisions, would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within the specified waters of the Choptank River. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.
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 to publish an NPRM, consider and respond to comments, and publish a final rule by August 29, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a temporary SLR which will be subject to enforcement from 10 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on August 29, 2026 and from 10 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on August 30, 2026. The SLR will cover certain waters of the Choptank River, near Cambridge, MD. The coordinates of these waters are provided in the rule text, at the end of this document. No vessel or person other than those that are registered with the host as participants will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a special local regulation. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
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 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(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 (410) 576-2693. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education.
Final waiver and extension of the project period with funding.
The Secretary waives the requirements in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) that generally prohibit project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The final waiver and extension would allow 21 projects under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.362A to receive funding for up to one additional 12-month period, not to exceed September 30, 2027.
This waiver and extension is effective August 25, 2026.
Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 401-1265. 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.
Native Hawaiian Education (NHE), authorized under sections 6201-6207 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), authorizes the Secretary to make grants to or enter into contracts with Native Hawaiian organizations and other organizations to support the development of innovative educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians. Under section 6205(a)(2), the Secretary must prioritize awarding grants to entities that propose projects designed to address beginning reading and literacy among students in kindergarten through third grade, the needs of at-risk children and youth, needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are underemployed, and the use of Hawaiian language in instruction. These projects may include one or more of the activities authorized under section 6205(a)(3).
On March 14, 2023, the Department of Education (Department) published in the
On June 5, 2026, the Department published a notice in the
There are no differences between the proposed waiver and extension and this notice of final waiver and extension of the project period with funding (final waiver and extension).
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments not directly related to the proposed waiver and extension.
An analysis of the comments and any changes in the final waiver and extension since publication of the proposed waiver and extension follows.
Of the 29 comments received, all were in support of the waiver.
In the proposed waiver and extension, we discussed the background and purposes of the NHE program and our reasons for proposing the waiver and extension. As outlined in that document, providing up to 12 additional months of funding would maximize continuity of services to those that the Native Hawaiian Education Program serves and support grantees through an efficient process that enables them to continue operating their current, approved projects for up to 12 additional months.
We have concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest to have a lapse in the work of current NHE program grantees while the Secretary considers changes to the NHE program.
Therefore, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(b)(2), which limits the extension of a project period if the extension involves the obligation of additional Federal funds.
Under this waiver—
(1) Current FY 2023 grantees are authorized to receive continuation determinations and awards annually for one additional 12-month period at an amount consistent with the amount awarded to each grantee in FY 2025.
(2) The Department is not announcing a new competition in FY 2026.
(3) During the extension period, any activities carried out must be consistent with, or be a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantees' approved application from the FY 2023 NHE program competition.
(4) Each grantee that receives a continuation determination and award must also continue to comply with the requirements established in the statute and the FY 2023 notice inviting applications for the NHE program (88 FR 15689).
The waiver of 34 CFR 75.261(b)(2) will not affect the applicability of the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 (continuation of a multi-year project after the first budget period) to any current NHE program grantee that receives a continuation award as a result of the waiver.
This action is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The entities that would be affected by this final waiver and extension are:
(a) The FY 2023 grantees currently receiving NHE program funds; and
(b) Entities that otherwise would have been eligible to apply for an award in FY 2026 under the NHE program if the Department had held that competition.
The extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This notice of final waiver and extension of the project period does not contain any information collection requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule invites comments on realigning and reallocating representation on the Mushroom Council as prescribed in the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order by adjusting the states in Regions 1 and 3 and reallocating a member from Region 1 to Region 3.
Comments must be received by September 24, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments may bemailed to the Docket Clerk, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0237; submitted by fax: (202) 720-8938; submitted electronically by email:
Kelly Robertson, Marketing Specialist or Alexandra Caryl, Branch Chief, Mid-Atlantic Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crop Program, AMS, USDA; telephone: (202) 720-8085 or via email:
This proposed rule affecting the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (7 CFR part 1209) is authorized by the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 6101-6112) (Act).
This proposed action is exempt from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process required by Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule would amend existing Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order, as amended (7 CFR part 1209) and is necessary for the continued operation of the program. Additionally, this proposed action is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” pursuant to section 5(c).
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” AMS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 1930 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6109) provides that it is not to be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to mushroom promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.
This proposed rule invites comments on adjusting the membership of the Mushroom Council (Council) established under the Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Order (Order). The Order is administered by the Council with oversight by USDA. This action was recommended by the Council after a review of the geographic distribution of mushroom production throughout the United States and imports. The U.S. states that comprise Regions 1 and 3 would be adjusted and a member seat would be moved from Region 1 to Region 3. This action is necessary to ensure equitable representation of producers and importers on the Council.
Section 1209.30(a) of the Order specifies that the Council shall consist of not less than four or more than nine members who are mushroom producers and importers. Pursuant to section 1209.30(b), for purposes of nominating and appointing producers to the Council, the U.S. is divided into four geographic regions.
Section 1209.230, Reallocation of Council members, currently specifies the number of members from each region as follows:
The current allocation of members above was recommended by the Council in 2018 and established through rulemaking by USDA in 2019 (84 FR 17059, April 24, 2019).
Section 1209.30(d) prescribes that, at least every five years, and not more than every three years, the Council must review changes in the geographic distribution of mushroom production volume throughout the U.S. and import volume, using the average annual mushroom production and imports over the preceding four years. The Council must recommend to the Secretary reapportionment of the regions and/or modification of the number of members from such regions as necessary to best reflect the geographic distribution of mushroom production volume in the U.S. and representation of imports.
Section 1209.30(e) prescribes a procedure to determine the number of members for each region to serve on the Council, subject to the nine-member maximum limitation. Each region that produces, on average, at least 50,000,000 pounds of mushrooms annually is entitled to one representative on the Council. Importers
The Council met on February 11, 2025, and reviewed the geographic distribution of mushroom production volume throughout the U.S. and import volume to assess whether reapportionment of the current regions or modification of the number of members from such regions, or both, were warranted. Table 1. below includes Council assessment data on domestic shipments for the preceding four years (2021 through 2024).
Table 1. a. shows domestic shipments by region and the corresponding allocation of seats across the current regions, and Table 1. b. shows the allocation of seats and Council representation under the proposed new regions. The four-year average of total domestic shipments, according to Council data, was 674.5 million pounds, with 437.7 million pounds coming from Pennsylvania alone. The Council's proposed representation would combine the 44.5 million pounds from other western states, including Texas, with the 81.3 million pounds of shipments from California to create a new Region 3 that represents the western U.S., minus Alaska and Hawaii. This would result in Region 1, as it currently stands, losing the 44.5 million pounds that would be allocated to the proposed Region 3, and dropping one Council seat, which would be added to Region 3.
Table 2. below provides a similar analysis based on U.S. production data from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and import data from USDA's Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). NASS production data by state is limited to Pennsylvania, California, and what it classifies as “Other States.” Beginning in 2025, state data for California is combined with data for “Other States,” leaving Pennsylvania as the only individual state for which NASS publishes data.
Like Table 1. a., Table 2. a. shows domestic production by current regions and the corresponding Council representation. Table 2. b. shows these for the proposed new regions and the corresponding Council representation. To address the lack of data on mushroom production at the state level, AMS utilized the results from the 2022 Census of Agriculture, published by NASS, to calculate the proportion of square feet in production in states included in the proposed Region 1 (45 percent) and in the proposed Region 3 (55 percent) relative to the total U.S. minus Pennsylvania production. Next, AMS applied these proportions to the “Other States” and California production figures reported by NASS in its annual Mushroom publication. The results are shown in Table 2. b. with the estimated four-year average production for Region 1 in the East at 104.5 million pounds and the estimated four-year average production for Region 3 in the West at 129.1 million pounds. Table 2. also shows import volume solely for informational purposes as the program's statute limits importer members to one.
Based on its analysis, the Council unanimously recommended redistributing the States in Regions 1 and 3 and subsequently decreasing the number of members in Region 1 by one while increasing the number of members in Region 3 by one. Accordingly, § 1209.230 would be revised as follows:
No changes are necessary to the number of members in Regions 2 and 4 or to their state make-up.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to the actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR 121.201, small agricultural producers of mushrooms (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111411, Mushroom Production) as those having average annual receipts no greater than $4.5 million and small agricultural service firms, such as importers (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities), as those having average annual receipts no greater than $34 million.
According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, there were 1,258 farms producing mushrooms nationwide in 2022. Based on data from the Council, there were 99 producers subject to assessment—meaning they produced, on average, more than 500,000 pounds of mushrooms per year—between 2021 and 2024. To find the number of producers whose average annual receipts exceed the SBA size standard of $4.5 million, AMS applied the average annual fresh market prices received for Agaricus mushrooms for 2021 through 2024, published by NASS, to Council shipment volume for 2021 through 2024. The result is an estimated 45 producers exceeding the SBA size standard of $4.5 million in average annual receipts; therefore, of the 1,258 mushroom producers nationwide, about 1,213, or 96 percent, would be considered small businesses.
According to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were 301 importers of fresh mushrooms between 2021 and 2024. Of these, four entities had average annual import values exceeding the SBA size standard for a small importer of $34 million in average annual receipts; therefore, of the 301 importers of fresh mushrooms, about 297, or 99 percent, would be considered small businesses.
This proposed rule invites comments on reallocating the membership of the Council under the Order. The Order is administered by the Council with oversight by USDA. This action was recommended by the Council after a review of the geographic distribution of the volume of mushroom production throughout the United States and the volume of imports. The number of Council members would be revised in two of the four regions under the Order. This action is necessary to ensure equitable representation of producers and importers on the Council. Authority for this action is provided in section 1209.30(d) of the Order and section 1925 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6104).
Regarding the economic impact of this proposed rule on affected entities, revising the number of members in Regions 1 and 3 would impose no additional costs on industry members. Eligible producers and importers interested in serving on the Council would have to complete a background questionnaire. Those requirements are addressed below. The changes are necessary to provide for the equitable representation of producers and importers on the Council.
Regarding alternatives, one option to the proposed action would be to maintain the status quo and not revise the number of Council members representing Regions 1 and 3. However, the Council's analysis of the assessment, NASS, and GATS data support the proposed changes. USDA concludes that the changes are necessary and appropriate.
Regarding outreach efforts, this proposed action was discussed by the Council at its meeting held on February 11, 2025, where the Council unanimously made its recommendation. All of the Council's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Order were approved under OMB control number 0581-0093. No changes to those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal research and promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce the burden of information requirements, and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Council and other available information, AMS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
USDA has determined this proposed rule, if finalized is consistent with and would effectuate the purpose of the Act. A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be considered prior to finalizing this action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Consumer protection, Marketing agreements, Mushrooms, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1209 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 6101-6112 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Pursuant to § 1209.30 of the Order, the number of members on the Council shall be as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to establish a $103,265 fee, payable at the time of filing, for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption, which would be imposed in addition to all other applicable fees or payments. This fee would serve as a dedicated revenue mechanism to help recover a portion of the federal government's costs of administering the lawful immigration system, including activities carried out by DHS, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
You may submit comments on the entirety of this proposed rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your comment by using
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone 240-721-3000. Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the proposed rule and may not receive a response from DHS.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to generate dedicated revenue to support the costs of administering the lawful immigration system. To achieve this result DHS has decided to establish an additional fee on all H-1B cap-subject petitions, payable at the time of filing. The new fee is designed, consistent with section 286(m) of the Immigration and
The lawful immigration system is largely funded by user fees.
DHS considered whether to propose recovery of the government's lawful immigration-related costs by adding a fee to all immigration benefit requests, or certain requests. We also considered increasing the existing H-1B petition fee in 8 CFR 106.2(a)(3)(i), rather than establishing a separate H-1B fee provision. For the reasons provided in this notice, DHS is proposing to add a fee at 8 CFR 106.2(a)(3)(xii) that would apply only to H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption (not to all H-1B petitions such as cap-exempt filings).
The proposed fee is specifically to recover the interagency costs described in this rule and having a standalone fee is intended to facilitate tracking, allocation, and reporting of the associated revenue. For these reasons, DHS proposes to implement the $103,265 amount as a separate, additional H-1B fee rather than combining it with the existing H-1B petition fee in 8 CFR 106.2(a)(3)(i).
The proposed fee, when required, would be in addition to any other applicable fees or payments,
As explained in more detail in Section III.A., DHS issues this proposed rule consistent with its authority under various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1101,
DHS proposes to include the following changes: a $103,265 additional fee imposed on all H-1B cap-subject petitions filed, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(5)(C).
• Provide additional resources for USCIS to fund adjudications, systems modernization, fraud detection and national security vetting, records and fee collection operations, and coordination with other DHS components; and
• Directly support activities related to the lawful immigration system carried out by USCIS, CBP, ICE, EOIR, DOS, and DOL, to the extent permitted by statute and appropriations law (for example, Immigration Court proceedings, consular visa processing, labor standards enforcement, and inspection and enforcement activities at and between ports of entry).
DHS expects that the additional revenue generated by this proposed fee would be used to reimburse U.S. government immigration adjudication and naturalization costs within the legal immigration system.
The Secretary's authority for these proposed regulatory amendments is found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. Titles I-V, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101
• Section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), which authorizes the Secretary to set “fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services . . . at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants;”
• Section 286(n) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(n), which permits “reimburse[ment of] any appropriation the amount paid out of such appropriation for expenses in providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services and the collection, safeguarding and accounting for fees deposited in and funds reimbursed” from the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA); and
• Section 286(j) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(j), which provides specific authority for the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the fee provisions of section 286 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356.
With a few exceptions, the fees collected related to adjudication and naturalization services must be deposited in the IEFA under section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
The CFO Act, 31 U.S.C. 901-03, requires USCIS' Chief Financial Officer (CFO), among other things, to review on a biennial basis the fees imposed by the agency for services it provides and to recommend changes to its fees. The CFO Act's biennial review requirement is the minimum frequency required by a fee-funded agency, and DHS may adjust USCIS fees more often than biennially as needed.
USCIS is primarily funded by fees charged to applicants, petitioners, and requestors for immigration and naturalization benefit requests. USCIS manages the following four fee accounts:
• The IEFA, which includes premium processing revenues (INA sec. 286(m), (n), (t), and (u); 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n), (t), and (u));
• The Fraud Prevention and Detection Account (INA secs. 214(c)(12) and (13), 286(v); 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(12) and (13), 1356(v));
• The H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Account (INA secs. 214(c)(9) and (11), 286(s); 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9) and (11), 1356(s)); and
• The EB-5 Integrity Fund (INA sec. 203(b)(5)(J), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(J)).
In 1988, Congress established the IEFA in the Treasury of the United States.
In FY 2025, the IEFA accounted for approximately 95 percent of total funding for USCIS, or $7.0 billion out of the $7.4 billion in total USCIS funding. The remaining USCIS funding came from appropriations (approximately 4 percent or $0.3 billion) or other fee accounts (approximately 1 percent or $0.1 billion) in FY 2025.
As discussed previously, the INA permits reimbursement of “expenses in providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services.”
DHS considered whether to recover the costs identified in this proposed rule by increasing fees broadly across all fee-paying applicants and petitioners but determined that doing so would place additional costs on individual applicants and petitioners, including requestors whose applications and petitions may be less directly connected to employment-based petitioning and who may have fewer resources available to absorb additional fee increases. After considering the resources of the different communities and populations that submit immigration benefit requests to USCIS, DHS has decided to propose that the costs be recovered by adding a fee to H-1B cap-subject petitions. DHS considered other options but determined that shifting these costs to petitioners for H-1B cap-subject petitions was appropriate considering that they are requests that are generally submitted by petitioners who have more ability to pay, as opposed to shifting those costs to all other fee payers.
DHS acknowledges that the scope of the proposed fee increase in this rule is significant. DHS proposes this cost shifting approach with an emphasis on the ability-to-pay principle for determining user fees.
DHS recognizes that H-1B cap-subject petitioners may object to paying a fee that recovers costs far beyond the direct adjudication cost of their individual petition. However, USCIS' fee schedule has long reflected the need to recover costs associated with administering the lawful immigration system as a whole, including costs of requests for which no fee is charged or for which the fee does not recover full cost. And DHS has historically considered ability to pay as one factor in setting immigration fees, particularly when determining how to allocate costs for services that are provided without a fee or at a fee below full cost. For example, in the 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS used its discretion to adjust certain immigration benefit request fees that USCIS believed may be overly burdensome on applicants, petitioners, and requestors if set at the recommended model output levels.
DHS anticipates this proposed fee would generate the necessary revenue provided filing volumes do not fall short of those projected herein. DHS acknowledges that USCIS may see a reduction in the number of H-1B cap registrations and some employers, including small entities, may file fewer petitions as a result of this proposed rule. However, the success of the USCIS fee model and this rulemaking in generating the necessary revenue depends on the filing volumes of cap-subject H-1B petitions not falling short of those projected herein. At the same time, balancing the goals of administering the lawful immigration programs using fee revenue, DHS has made considered judgments about how to receive the needed funds using available and appropriate means. DHS decided to propose this fee after considering recovery of the government's lawful immigration-related costs across agencies and the relative resources of the H-1B Form I-129 filing community.
DHS arrived at the amount of the proposed H-1B fee by calculating the amount that would need to be added to the fees for Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, to collect the identified annual costs using USCIS' standard costing and fee calculation methodologies. In addition to shifting these costs to H-1B cap-subject petitions for cost recovery, imposing this fee on such petitions aligns with other, related statutory authorities including:
• Section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes DHS to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants;
• Section 214(c)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe how an importing employer may petition for nonimmigrant workers, as well as the form of the petition and the information that an importing employer must provide in the petition;
• Section 402 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 202, which charges the Secretary with “[e]stablishing and administering rules
• Section 451(a)(3) and (b) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3) and (b), which transferred to USCIS the authority to adjudicate petitions for nonimmigrant status, establish policies for performing that function, and set national immigration services policies and priorities.
After analyzing the costs required for administering lawful immigration programs, the administration determined that using fee revenue was appropriate. In this proposed rule DHS has explained that after considering how to fund the identified costs, and the authorities available, using a H-1B cap subject petition fee was the most viable and appropriate means.
USCIS is the DHS component primarily responsible for adjudication of immigration and naturalization benefit requests, including petitions filed under the H-1B program.
Congress has established limits on the number of foreign workers who may be granted initial H-1B nonimmigrant visas or status each fiscal year (FY) (commonly known as the “cap”).
Under the current regulation, all petitioners seeking to file an H-1B cap-subject petition must first electronically submit a registration for each beneficiary on whose behalf they seek to file an H-1B cap-subject petition, unless USCIS suspends the registration requirement. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)(
A prospective petitioner that properly registered for a beneficiary who is selected is notified of the selection and instructed that the petitioner is eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition for the beneficiary named in the selected registration within a filing period that is at least 90 days in duration. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D)(
ICE is the principal investigative arm of DHS.
CBP manages many programs within DHS to safeguard U.S. borders and enhance the nation's security. For
Within DOJ, EOIR adjudicates matters brought under various immigration statutes.
DOS advises the President in the formulation and execution of foreign policy and promotes the long-range security and well-being of the United States.
A citizen of a foreign country who seeks to travel to the United States generally must first obtain a U.S. visa.
The DOL, Wage and Hour Division (WHD), is responsible for administering various provisions of the INA that extend protections to different types of nonimmigrant workers including the following:
DOL, Office of the Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC), is charged with ensuring that the employment of prospective foreign workers in the United States by an employer on a permanent or temporary basis will not adversely affect the job opportunities, wages, and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed.
USCIS receives millions of immigration benefits requests
To set fees for immigration benefit requests, DHS has generally relied on OMB Circular A-25,
As stated elsewhere in this preamble, DHS, EOIR, DOS, and DOL are each engaged in multiple rulemaking actions that are in various stages of development.
To the extent possible, DHS has also considered the effects of intervening or future legislation and policy changes known to USCIS. Immigration policy is subject to frequent change, and new initiatives may arise that are not incorporated into proposed rules due to the time required for rule development and approval. DHS, therefore, cannot assert that it has considered every policy change planned or that may occur at all levels and agencies of the U.S. government that could directly or indirectly affect this proposed rule. However, DHS believes it has examined and considered all relevant aspects of the issues addressed by this rulemaking and has articulated a reasoned explanation for the proposed changes, without relying on factors outside congressional intent. Specific recent and planned rulemakings and their effects on this rule are as follows:
As explained in detail later in this preamble, DHS proposed fee increases for two naturalization forms and changes to fee waivers in a separate rule.
DHS proposed to amend its regulations governing biometrics use and collection in separate rulemaking.
DHS issued an interim final rule (IFR) to codify certain immigration fees and other provisions required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (H.R.1).
The
The expansion of the 9-11 Biometric Fee introduces additional financial and operational considerations. As DHS evaluates the H-1B proposed rule, we will consider the cumulative impact of multiple fee requirements, the administrative processes for fee collection, the need for coordination among components, and additional biometric submission requirements and related vetting. Depending on the timing of finalization and implementation of these rules, DHS will analyze the costs to be funded by the revenue from the CBP 9-11 Biometric Fee Rule and this rule to ensure the costs to be funded are not duplicated. Both rules are part of a systematic DHS effort to recover the costs of the immigration system and support efficient implementation and fiscal planning as the regulatory environment for employment-based immigration continues to evolve.
The EOIR Fees interim final rule implements statutory fee increases and new fee requirements for filings with EOIR, as mandated by H.R.1.
While the EOIR Fees IFR and this proposed rule are separate regulatory actions, both reflect broader statutory and policy changes affecting immigration-related fees across federal agencies. The implementation of updated EOIR fees may influence overall fee structures, interagency coordination, and revenue projections associated with the H-1B proposed rule. DHS and DOJ have considered the effect and uses of the fees collected by DOJ on the costs and revenue that are the basis of this rule. DHS and its partner agencies have and will continue to consider the evolving landscape of immigration fees to ensure consistency and compliance as new rules are finalized and implemented.
DOL's proposed rule,
If finalized, the DOL Proposed Wages Rule is expected to result in higher required wage floors for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the affected visa categories. The proposed adjustments are expected to have significant financial and operational implications for employers, including those participating in the H-1B program, and may affect the overall demand for employment-based immigration benefits. The DOL Proposed Wages Rule is only one part of a broader set of regulatory and policy changes aimed at ensuring that the employment of foreign workers does not adversely affect the wages, working conditions, and job opportunities of U.S. workers similarly employed.
This H-1B fee proposed rule accounts for the impact of revised prevailing wage requirements on employer behavior, labor market dynamics, and the administration of employment-based immigration programs. As new rules are developed and implemented, including the DOL Proposed Wages Rule, ongoing coordination between DHS, DOL, and other federal departments and agencies will be necessary to ensure that changes to wage protections are harmonized with other regulatory and policy initiatives and that the cumulative effects on stakeholders are fully evaluated. DHS may adjust the calculations in this rule, should it be finalized, based on our evaluation of the cumulative effects of various concurrent and intervening policy and regulatory changes.
Historically, USCIS fee regulations have been structured to recover only the costs incurred by USCIS in providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services. However, this proposed rule would recover costs attributable not only to USCIS, but also to other departments and agencies that have statutory responsibilities in administering the lawful immigration system including ICE, CBP, EOIR, DOS, and DOL. Section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), authorizes the Secretary to set “fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services . . . at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services,” including the costs of services provided without charge. In 1988, Congress enacted INA sections 286(m) and 286(n), which modified the basic scheme for funding the costs of administering immigration and naturalization benefits.
In 1990, Congress amended section 286(m), by adding a proviso to make clear that fees collected for processing and adjudicating immigration and naturalization applications should fund all costs associated with administering such benefits.
That fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of the
INA sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) (emphasis added).
As the House Appropriations Committee recognized, the purpose of the 1990 amendment to section 286(m) was to ensure that fees deposited in the IEFA will fund “the entire cost of operating the Adjudications and Naturalization program.”
DHS has provided the general public with its interpretation of section 286(m) since at least 2007, setting forth the legal basis for its authority to set and to adjust fees on immigration and naturalization applications. And DHS has interpreted section 286(m)'s plain language as granting it discretion to structure fees to “recover the full cost of operating USCIS.”
Section 286(n) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(n), further authorizes the reimbursement of “any appropriation” for amounts paid from that appropriation for expenses in providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services and for the collection, safeguarding, and accounting of fees deposited in and funds reimbursed from the IEFA. Together, these provisions establish that Congress intended immigration benefit fees deposited into the IEFA to support the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization services, and to permit reimbursement of other appropriations to the extent those appropriations fund such services.
Consistent with OMB Circular A-25 and Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 4, DHS has long interpreted “full costs” to include both direct and indirect costs necessary to provide immigration services, including support services provided by other components and agencies. To date, however, DHS has generally exercised this authority by focusing fee recovery on costs incurred by USCIS, and we have not included costs borne by other departments and agencies.
This authority is being used more explicitly for several reasons. One key factor is that interagency costs associated with administering the lawful immigration system have grown substantially. Additionally, relying more fully on the existing authority in sections 286(m) and (n) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and (n), advances Congress's directive that immigration adjudication and naturalization services be funded, to the extent possible, through fees that recover their full costs.
That fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of the
Section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) (emphasis added).
By broadening the costs to be recovered as permitted by the statute, DHS aims to ensure that fees collected for immigration benefit requests more accurately reflect the full range of Federal activities and resources required to support the lawful immigration system.
DHS proposes recovering a portion of USCIS operating costs through the proposed additional H-1B fee.
• Projected unfunded IEFA non-premium costs of approximately $1.8 billion, identified in the FY 2026/2027 IEFA fee review completed in November 2025; and
• A cost transfer from the Premium Processing account of approximately $1.2 billion, based on the FY 2026 USCIS Operating Plan, to shift ongoing, core mission costs off the premium processing funding and onto other fee revenue.
Together, these elements result in a USCIS cost basis of approximately $3.0 billion to be recovered through the revenue generated by the proposed additional H-1B fee.
DHS and USCIS use a biennial fee review process to capture any changes in operating costs and non-premium form fees across the USCIS enterprise. When conducting a fee review to determine whether current immigration and naturalization benefit fees will generate sufficient revenue to fund the anticipated operating costs associated with administering the nation's lawful immigration system, USCIS usually assesses its recent operating environment to determine the appropriate method to assign costs to immigration benefit requests.
USCIS completed its last fee review for the FY 2026/2027 biennial period in November 2025. Based on projected IEFA-funded costs and revenue under the current fee schedule, USCIS identified an anticipated annual need of approximately $1.9 billion. This deficit reflects additional IEFA-funded requirements that are not covered by existing fees.
In developing the biennial cost projection for the fee review, all IEFA non-premium costs were considered, accounting for payroll and non-payroll costs for on-board and new staff, inflation, resource requirements or adjustments, and the removal of costs associated with temporary programs. USCIS started with its general FY 2025 USCIS Operating Plan, which was slightly adjusted for some return to workplace costs estimated for the remainder of the fiscal year. USCIS then made the following adjustments in this review:
• Staffing Increases: Added staffing based on the FY 2026 and FY 2027 Staffing Allocation Model (SAM) enhancements, a non-SAM enhancement request, and a position transfer from the Fraud Prevention and Detection Account (FPDA), for a total of 6,045 new positions across most USCIS offices by the end of FY 2027. The SAM enhancements, which totaled 5,694 positions and an average annual cost of $1.8 billion, incorporate the effect of recent Executive Orders, as well as the most recent agency completion rate estimates. The FDNS non-SAM enhancement of 167 positions in FY 2025 was approved to start ramping up hiring in response to Executive Orders 14157
• New Facilities and Related Costs: Included costs for construction of new facilities, rent, and Federal Protective Service (FPS) coverage to accommodate additional 6,045 staff. Construction is a one-time cost of approximately $405.7 million in FY 2026 and is removed from net additional costs in FY 2027. Ongoing rent and FPS costs for the added space average $75.3 million per year.
• Pay and Inflation: Applied assumed annual pay and price inflation of 3 percent for FY 2026 and FY 2027, including anticipated promotions and within grade increases, and statutory cost of living adjustments.
• Other Net Additional Costs: Incorporated several major new or expanded initiatives, including: (1) full internalization of lockbox operations over the biennial period ($231.1 million); (2) construction and activation of a new National Records Center ($114.7 million); and (3) development and operation of a new Voter Verification System ($75.3 million).
Table 2 summarizes the transition from the FY 2025 IEFA nonpremium annual Operating Plan to the FY 2026/2027 annual average IEFA nonpremium cost projection. The resulting projected average annual IEFA nonpremium cost for FY 2026/2027 is approximately $6,960 million.
Within the final $1.9 billion annual average increase in the cost projection from the FY 2025 Operating Plan, USCIS is assigning $1.6 billion to be recovered through the proposed additional H-1B fee. USCIS is also adding $174.3 million for new staffing needs identified after the completion of the biennial fee review. These additional staffing positions are necessary to address evolving operational requirements, ensure continuity of critical functions, and support increased workload demands. The new staff would help USCIS improve processing efficiency, maintain service levels, and enhance the integrity of the lawful immigration system, including the H-1B program. These amounts total $1.8 billion of non-premium IEFA costs to be recovered by the proposed additional H-1B fee.
As explained earlier in this preamble, DHS has considered and analyzed other rulemaking projects that are underway for peripheral, overlapping, or interrelated effects on this rule. For example, DHS and USCIS would recover additional revenue in the Naturalization Fee Rule.
In the 2024 Final Rule, DHS transferred $129.8 million in costs to premium processing to reduce costs to be recovered by non-premium fees.
Premium processing funds currently support payroll for 1,979 full-time equivalents (FTE) in the Service Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS) and 472 FTE in the Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate (RAIO). Non-payroll expenses funded by premium processing also support USCIS' information technology (IT) infrastructure and other operational needs related to premium processing activities. Transferring these costs from premium processing to non-premium funding would provide USCIS with greater flexibility to invest in IT and other initiatives that enhance adjudication processing, while ensuring sufficient staffing and support to meet premium processing time requirements. Some examples of operational enhancements that USCIS would fund with premium processing funding include additional personnel to sustain timely vetting and fraud detection amid significant increases in national security cases, fraud referrals and site visits, pre-interview screening assessments that allow USCIS to identify and proactively work high-risk cases, and consolidating and integrating various federal screening and vetting information databases and systems.
ICE bears significant expenses for functions that directly support the administration of the lawful immigration system. These functions include, among others, investigations and referrals related to immigration benefit fraud, worksite and employer-compliance activities tied to nonimmigrant employment categories, data and information-sharing in support of benefit adjudications, and case
The amounts in Table 5 reflect ICE's estimated FY 2026/2027 costs for these immigration-benefit-related activities, inclusive of operational expenditures and associated infrastructure (
CBP provides support to the lawful immigration system in various ways. This rule proposes using the new fee to fund the expansion of a middleware solution integrated into the traveler inspection process. This solution provides biometric matching capabilities for travelers entering and exiting the country through the Traveler Verification Service (TVS). The costs assigned in this section reflect only those portions of biometric entry-exit system expenses that are estimated to be attributable to aliens and immigrants (not U.S. citizens) that are not expected to be fully funded by appropriated funds or other fee authorities. DHS will align cost assignments consistent with the analysis described in Section IV.D to avoid duplicative cost recovery, taking into account that the statutory authority for the 9-11 Biometric Fee is currently scheduled to sunset in the next fiscal year. For additional information, see the CBP Costs section of the H-1B Rule Supporting Documentation included in the docket.
As shown in Table 7, DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) requires substantial personnel, court operational, and adjudicatory support resources to carry out its immigration court and appellate functions. These resources support EOIR's adjudication of asylum applications, cancellation of removal applications, and associated motions and appeals, as well as related matters before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. These activities are integral to the functioning of the lawful immigration system and represent ongoing, mandatory adjudicative responsibilities.
DHS proposes to allocate a portion of the proposed additional H-1B fee revenue to support expanded EOIR adjudicatory capacity for FY 2027 and subsequent annualized costs. As reflected in Table 7, the proposed allocation would fund approximately $3.0 billion in EOIR costs, including $1.9 billion for personnel, $748.1 million for court-related non-personnel costs, and $318.8 million for adjudicatory non-personnel costs.
The proposed EOIR personnel costs would support 8,400 additional positions organized around Immigration Judge teams and related operational support. These positions include Immigration Judges, attorneys, Legal Administrative Specialists or Legal Assistants, professional administrative staff, and other law-related support positions. The proposed non-personnel costs would support the facilities, security, information technology, travel, utilities, interpretation, transcription, litigation support, representation-related program costs, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) support, and other services necessary for EOIR to conduct timely and accurate adjudications.
Including these in the costs to be reimbursed with the proposed H-1B fee is consistent with INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), and OMB Circular A-25, which permit recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication services, including related personnel, support, facilities, technology, and overhead.
Table 7 illustrates how allocating a portion of the proposed H-1B fee revenue to EOIR would provide stable funding for Immigration Court and Board operations that are closely tied to the administration of the lawful immigration system. Reliable fee funding would support timely and accurate adjudications and reduce dependence on appropriations or transfers to meet core adjudicative needs. For additional information, see the EOIR Costs section of the H-1B Rule
As shown in Table 8, DOS incurs targeted costs for consular activities that directly support screening, vetting, and fraud prevention for employment-based visa applicants, including H-1B beneficiaries.
DOS costs arise from several areas. The Visa Services Directorate supports the operation of the Fivecast and related systems used for joint DOS/USCIS vetting, plus additional contractor support at the Kentucky Consular Center, to enhance data sharing and risk screening for visa applicants. The Offices of Fraud Prevention Programs identified costs that would support AI-enabled fraud screening and link analysis tools and expanded Diplomatic Security efforts to investigate and address visa fraud and misuse involving nonimmigrant programs. In addition, DOS incurs costs for consular sections at 270 posts around the globe to address enhanced fraud-focused training and additional staff at consular posts to strengthen in-person review and fraud detection for employment-based visa cases. The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) incurs costs related to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), such as expenses for Mission South Africa. The Resettlement Support Center (RSC) is responsible for refugee medical exams and arranging travel to the United States. Other costs cover the International Organization for Migration's (IOM) operation of a second RSC and support for refugee airport transfers worldwide, along with various expenses to maintain case processing infrastructure at DOS. For additional information, see DOS Costs section of the H-1B Rule Supporting Documentation included in the docket.
Funding these DOS costs, that are not already funded by fees, with the proposed additional H-1B fee recognizes that frontend consular vetting and fraud prevention are integral components of the lawful immigration system supported by H-1B petition fees.
DOL performs labor certification, labor condition, and prevailing wage determination functions that are statutory predicates or delegated components of certain USCIS employment-based adjudications. The amounts reflect DOL's projected FY 2026/2027 costs for these functions that are not already funded by fees.
DOL costs to support this rule come from a variety of areas. The Permanent (PERM) Program supports required prevailing wage and labor certification processing for certain employment-based immigrant petitions (Form I-140,
Additionally, DOL will use revenue from this fee to support the Wage and Hour Division of the Agency in immigration enforcement activities across relevant visa programs, including investigations, housing inspections, wage and hour compliance, and case development and the Office of the Solicitor to provide legal support and litigation services for the OFLC and WHD enforcement, including regulatory drafting, work before the Office of Administrative Law Judges and
DHS proposes to fund the DOL cost items in Table 9 with the proposed additional H-1B fee because these mandatory labor certification and wage functions are integral components of the employment-based immigration system. For additional information, see the DOL Costs section of the H-1B Rule Supporting Documentation included in the docket.
DHS proposes a $103,265 fee for each H-1B cap-subject petition filed in addition to other required fees to recover the lawful immigration-related costs attributed to DHS and other federal agencies, as described in this rule. Applying this fee to a projected annual volume of 85,000
DHS has assessed the costs of the lawful immigration system and has determined that an additional fee of $103,265 would provide revenue to cover the costs explained in this rulemaking.
DHS is proposing to not require the fee to be paid with a petition for a cap-exempt H-1B nonimmigrant. That is because many cap-exempt H-1B nonimmigrants are employed by nonprofit research organizations, governmental research organizations and educational institutions, and DHS has decided that exempting those organizations is consistent with the application of the asylum program fee on such petitioners.
DHS recognizes that the other agency costs that are included in this rule and used to establish the fee proposed in this rule are new. DHS also recognizes that DOS and DOL have not independently used the authority in section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), to establish fees to cover the costs they incur for administering adjudication services. However, in 2024, for the first time, DHS established a new Asylum Program Fee of $600 to be paid to fund the asylum program by any petitioner filing a
In addition, DHS generally adjusts its fees based on the fee study required by the CFO Act after determining that current fees need to be adjusted because they do not reflect the current burden of adjudication, they are inadequate to fund the total costs of operating USCIS, and we have identified areas of USCIS operations that need enhancements or additional resources. The primary objective of the fee review is to determine whether current immigration and naturalization benefit fees will generate sufficient revenue to fund anticipated operating costs associated with administering USCIS' role in the nation's lawful immigration system.
In addition, DHS has generally adhered to OMB Circulars A-25 and A-
Similar to the establishment of the Asylum Program Fee, DHS has never set a fee for a specific immigration sub-population that submits a certain USCIS benefit request to fund general USCIS operating costs, costs that are currently borne by other DHS components, costs that are borne by other executive branch departments, or costs that have been generally funded by a Congressional appropriation. Nevertheless, although it has not historically been fulsomely applied, section 286(m) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), authorizes DHS to set fees to recover the full aggregate costs of providing immigration benefits and services, including costs incurred by other federal agencies that are materially involved in the delivery of those services.
DHS does not propose this additional H-1B fee without having carefully considered its implications and effects. DHS realizes that some petitioners will object to funding the costs of non-USCIS administered programs to which they have no connection or from which they receive no direct benefit. At the same time, the agencies to be funded from this fee are charged with administering programs related to the administration of immigration adjudication and naturalizations service and DHS has determined that fee revenue should be used to reimburse those programs. In addition, while the purpose of this proposed rule is to generate additional revenue to fund adjudication services, DHS believes the fee would have indirect benefits. DHS believes that U.S. employers, if required to pay an additional $103,265 fee when filing an H-1B cap-subject petition, would be less likely to hire an H-1B worker over a qualified and highly-skilled American worker unless the need is legitimate and they have no alternative for obtaining the specialized skills of the employee. Given that demand for H-1B workers greatly exceeds the statutory cap, this fee could also have the indirect benefit of better protecting the wages and job opportunities of U.S. workers, as the H-1B program is intended to do.
As described above, the total number of foreign workers who may be granted initial H-1B nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year may not exceed 85,000.
The proposed fee of $103,265 and the projected volume of 85,000 yield a total revenue projection of approximately $8.8 billion, as shown in Table 10:
USCIS, after retaining the necessary share to recover its associated costs, would allocate the revenue collected from the proposed additional H-1B fee to the five agencies and departments previously identified for actual expenses incurred based on the estimated share of the costs explained in this rule. Table 11 shows the initial proposed distribution for revenue collections:
DHS and USCIS will execute agreements with the other executive branch departments, agencies, or DHS components to reimburse them for expenses incurred in or directly related to providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services as authorized by section 286(n) of the
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any new incremental costs associated with the new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this proposed rule a “significant regulatory action” that is economically significant, as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 because its annual effects on the economy exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the OMB.
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in section (a)(17) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17), or any other function performed by the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens.
DHS is proposing a fee of $103,265 for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including small employers or nonprofits. The purpose of this NPRM is to generate additional revenue to support the costs of administering the lawful immigration system. The proposed additional fee, if finalized as proposed, would provide a new targeted revenue mechanism to help recover a portion of the costs incurred by multiple Federal agencies in processing, adjudicating, and supporting the lawful immigration system, including USCIS, CBP, ICE, EOIR, DOS, and DOL. The fee would allow USCIS to further refine its fee model and recover costs.
DHS estimates that this proposed rule would create annual quantified costs of approximately $8.8 billion over the 10-year period of analysis (FY 2027 through FY 2036). To compare costs over time, DHS applies 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates to the total estimated costs of the proposed rule. DHS estimates the 10-year total costs of the proposed rule to be $74.9 billion discounted at 3 percent, and $61.6 billion discounted at 7 percent. Table 12 presents the OMB Circular A-4 accounting statement showing the costs, benefits, and transfers associated with this rule.
DHS has decided to make up the funding shortfall identified in this rule by charging a fee for all Form I-129 H-1B cap-subject petitions, payable at the time of filing the petition. The number of aliens who may be issued initial H-1B visas or otherwise provided initial H-1B nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year has been capped at various levels by Congress over time, with the current numerical limit being 65,000 per fiscal year.
In FY 2020, DHS implemented an electronic registration process for the H-1B cap-subject petitions. Prospective petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions, including for beneficiaries eligible for the advanced degree exemption, first must electronically register and pay the associated H-1B registration fee for each beneficiary.
In Table 13, DHS presents data from receipts of Form I-129 petitions for H-1B classification that employers have filed on behalf of nonimmigrant workers. The following table shows total Form I-129 receipts for H-1B classification and cap-subject H-1B petitions for FY 2021 through FY 2025. DHS estimates that 442,020 is the 2-year average annual number of Form I-129 petitions for H-1B classification filed by employers; the 2-year average of cap-subject receipts is 108,910. DHS is highlighting the 2-year average taking into consideration the impact of the beneficiary centric selection process for H-1B registrations, as well as modernization, and improvement to the efficiency of the H-1B program. Generally, the filing volume of cap-subject H-1B petitions differs from the numerical limits set by Congress as USCIS has historically selected more than 85,000 beneficiaries/registrations in the lottery and received more than 85,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions, to account for denied, rejected, or withdrawn petitions. If this rule were finalized as proposed, DHS anticipates a projected volume of 85,000 would be subject to the proposed additional fee.
As explicitly described in the preamble, the current fee schedule does not generate sufficient government revenue to support the costs of administration of the lawful immigration system. To recover certain costs of USCIS, other DHS components, and other executive branch agencies engaged in administering the lawful immigration system, DHS is proposing to establish an additional fee of $103,265 for cap-subject H-1B nonimmigrant petitions. A recent analysis, Borjas (2026) suggests that H-1B petitioners would be willing to pay a one-time fee ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to hire a foreign-born worker.
DHS has analyzed the responses of petitioners to the fee increase implemented from April 1, 2024 and continues to monitor the recent $100,000 proclamation payment data. DHS has analyzed the possible sensitivity of demand for H-1B visa requests to filing fees by estimating a negative binomial regression model and FY 2021 through FY 2025 data to measure unique petitioners' responses to fee changes over this time. Short run fee elasticity estimates were generated from the cross-sectional regression models implemented on each fiscal year while panel regression models implemented on four fiscal years led to long-run fee elasticity estimates. The panel regression analysis estimated the long run fee elasticity of demand for H-1B receipts to be less than one, hence we concluded that fee elasticity of demand for I-129 H-1B receipts is inelastic. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis supporting the 2024 Final Rule, USCIS discussed factors that drive this inelasticity.
Table 13 shows that USCIS typically selects more than 85,000 beneficiaries/registrations in the lottery, and receives more than 85,000 H-1B cap-subject petitions, to account for denied, rejected or withdrawn petitions. In any fiscal year, the total number of foreign workers who may be granted initial cap-subject H-1B nonimmigrant status during any fiscal year may not exceed 85,000. The proposed $103,265 fee would result in real costs to cap-subject H-1B petitioners that fund new activities supporting administration of the lawful immigration system across multiple agencies.
In table 14, DHS presents the total estimated costs associated with the rule at 3- and 7-percent discount rates per the OMB circular A-4. The 10-year discounted costs based on this proposed rule are approximately $8,777,525,000 annualized, $74,874,068,655 billion at a 3-percent discount rate and about $61,649,662,565 billion at a 7-percent discount rate.
Historically, USCIS fee regulations have been structured to recover only the costs incurred by USCIS in providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services. The proposed rulemaking would better align fees with costs of administering the lawful immigration system across multiple agencies. It would help recover a portion of the federal government costs attributable not only to USCIS, but also to other departments and agencies that have statutory responsibilities in administering the lawful immigration system including activities carried out by CBP, ICE, EOIR, DOS, and DOL.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, or governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
DHS is proposing to amend its regulations governing fees for H-1B cap-subject petitions. DHS believes these changes would allow DHS to set fees for H-1B cap-subject filers to cover a portion of the costs of administering the lawful immigration system. In addition, DHS believes the proposed changes could also have the indirect benefit of better protecting the wages of similarly situated and highly skilled U.S. workers.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to establish an additional fee on all H-1B cap-subject petitions, payable at the time of filing, to generate dedicated revenue to support the costs of administering the lawful immigration system. The proposed additional fee, if finalized as proposed, would provide a targeted revenue mechanism to help recover a portion of the costs incurred by multiple Federal agencies in processing, adjudicating, and supporting the lawful immigration system, including USCIS, CBP, ICE, EOIR, DOS, and DOL.
Table 15 outlines receipts of 28,649 unique petitioners that filed for cap-subject H-1B petitions during FY 2025. Of the 28,649 petitioners, 14,541 were determined to be small entities, 8,758 were determined to be non-small entities, and 5,350 that lacked data to determine entity size.
Out of the 14,541 entities that were determined to be small entities, there were 11,312 small entities that met the SBA revenue threshold and the remaining 3,229 met the employee threshold.
The proposed rulemaking would not lead to any additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on small entities.
DHS is aware of potential overlap with the Department of Labor's Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and CBP's 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H-1B and L-1 Visas Final Rule. However, no conflicts or duplications have been identified.
While the proposed changes to the fee schedule for I-129 H-1B cap-subject petitioners would impose a burden on some prospective employers, USCIS found no other alternatives that achieved the stated objectives identified in the preamble's Section III. Background and Purpose with less burden to small entities. Exempting small entities or discounting fees creates a sizable perverse incentive for employers to avoid the fee. This would lead to shortfall in revenue realization and would fail to meaningfully improve program integrity.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate, because it would not impose any enforceable duty upon any other level of government or private sector entity. Rather, there may be some private-public partnership investment projects and beneficial downstream effects to State or local governments. Any downstream effects on such entities would arise solely due to their voluntary choices, and the voluntary choices of others, and would not be a consequence of an enforceable duty imposed by this rule. Similarly, any costs or transfer effects on State and local governments would not result from a Federal mandate as that term is defined under UMRA. The requirements of title II of UMRA; therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA.
This proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132,
This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this proposed rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
DHS has reviewed this proposed rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS has systematically reviewed the criteria specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this regulatory action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7) establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being, then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its implementation.
DHS has no data that indicate that this proposed rule would have any impacts on disposable income or the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. DHS believes that the benefits of the new fees justify the financial impact on the family, if any, and no further actions are required. The proposed additional fee on certain H-1B petitions would be paid by H-1B petitioners and not H-1B beneficiaries; therefore, the proposed additional fee would not have a direct financial impact on the beneficiary or family members of the beneficiary. Therefore, DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation would not negatively affect family well-being and would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
This proposed 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.
DHS and its components analyze proposed regulatory actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This proposed rule is limited to amending DHS regulations to require an additional fee of $103,265 for each H-1B cap-subject petition filed. This proposed rule is strictly administrative and procedural and only proposes to amend existing DHS regulations governing H-1B cap-subject petition fees. DHS has reviewed this proposed rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect would result if the rule is finalized as proposed.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the proposed amendments to current regulations clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
Under the PRA of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3512, DHS must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements inherent in a rule, unless
Citizenship and naturalization, Fees, Immigration.
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 1254b, 1304, 1356, 1801-1815; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 107-609, 115 Stat. 1012; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101 note).
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xii) The following additional fee is required for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption under section 214(g)(5)(C) of the Act: $103,265.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Pratt and Whitney Canada (P&WC) aircraft engine Model PW220A. This engine will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for engines. This design feature will incorporate an unusual power rating structure that includes an “idle cruise regime” (ICR). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send comments on or before October 9, 2026.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2026-3073 using any of the following methods:
Philip Haberlen, Engine and Propulsion, AIR-625, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA New England Regional Office, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7770; email
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments, and will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to
Confidential Business Information (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 these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these proposed special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the
On November 16, 2021, P&WC applied for a type certificate for its new Model aircraft engine model PW220A. The PW220A is a turboshaft engine designed for transport category twin-engine helicopters.
Under 14 CFR 21.17(c), an application for type certification is effective for three years, unless the FAA approves a longer period. Section 21.17(d) provides that, where a type certificate has not been issued within the time limit established under § 21.17(c), the applicant may file for an extension and update the designated applicable regulations in the type certification
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, P&WC must show that the Model PW220A aircraft engine meets the applicable provisions of part 33, as amended by amendments 33-1 through 33-34.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The P&WC Model aircraft engine model PW220A will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
An unusual power rating structure that includes an ICR.
The PW220A engine is a new centerline turboshaft engine designed for a transport category, twin-engine helicopter. The applicant has requested that operation will include an ICR where the power from one engine will be reduced to a low idle condition while the other engine will provide 100% of the required power to the aircraft during cruise flight. The applicant is requesting a rating structure such that the PW220A engine in ICR will have different limits from the all-engines-operating (AEO) or one-engine-inoperative (OEI) conditions.
The applicable airworthiness requirements do not contain the ICR definition and do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the type certification of these new and unusual engine ratings.
The inclusion of the ICR will have implications on multiple regulatory sections affecting both engine operation and continued airworthiness which must be assessed by the FAA.
The prime objective of ICR is to reduce total fuel consumption and increase the operating range of the helicopter. The fundamental concept of ICR stems from the fact that one engine is thermodynamically more efficient at providing a given total power than two engines sharing the load equally. As such, it is beneficial from a fuel savings point of view to bring one engine to minimum fuel flow (the stand-by engine) and use the other engine to provide 100% of the required power to the aircraft during the cruise phase of the flight (the active engine). The lower the stand-by condition, the higher the benefit in fuel consumption.
The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to the other model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on the PWC aircraft engine model PW220A. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Pratt and Whitney Canada Model PW220A engine.
The following definitions are added to § 1.1:
In addition to the requirements of section 33.7(c), ratings and limitations are established for horsepower, torque, r.p.m., gas temperature, time duration, and number of occurrences for rated ICR active maximum continuous power and rated ICR 2 minute power.
The requirements of § 33.28 except that § 33.28(i)(2) should read as follows:
When an engine dedicated electrical power source is required for compliance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, its capacity should provide sufficient margin to account for engine operation below the rated ICR stand-by power, where the engine control system is designed and expected to recover engine operation automatically.
The requirements of § 33.68, except that “minimum descent idle rotor speeds” is replaced with the “rated ICR stand-by power rotor speeds” in § 33.68(a) and § 33.68(b).
The requirements of § 33.73, except § 33.73(b) should read as follows:
The design and construction of the engine must enable an increase from the
The requirements of § 33.78, except §§ 33.78(b)(1) through 33.78(b)(4) should read as follows:
(1) A normal stabilization period of three minutes at rated maximum continuous power without rain ingestion, followed immediately by the suddenly commencing ingestion of rain for three minutes at rated maximum continuous power, then
(2) Continuation of the rain ingestion during subsequent rapid deceleration to the rated ICR stand-by power, then
(3) Continuation of the rain ingestion during three minutes at the rated ICR stand-by power, then
(4) Continuation of the rain ingestion during subsequent rapid acceleration to rated ICR 2 minute power.
The requirements of § 33.87, except as follows:
(1) The requirements of § 33.87(d)(1) except that instead of alternating between rated takeoff power and idling power:
(i) The higher condition must be rated takeoff power during the first, second and fourth periods and rated ICR 2 minute power during the third, fifth and sixth periods.
(ii) The lower condition must be the rated ICR stand-by power condition or lower.
(iii) During the sixth period, lower condition must be kept for 10 minutes instead of 5 minutes.
(2) The requirements of § 33.87(d)(2) through § 33.87(d)(7), except as follows:
(i) The first 15 of the twenty-five 6-hour test cycles required by § 33.87(d)(2) must be conducted at the rated ICR active maximum continuous power instead of the rated maximum continuous power.
(ii) In the last 10 of the twenty-five 6-hour test cycles, the last 5 minutes of the 1 hour at the rated continuous OEI power required by § 33.87(d)(3), must be run at the rated ICR 2 minute power instead of the rated continuous OEI power.
(iii) The test required by § 33.87(d)(4) must be performed for 55 minutes instead of 60 minutes and must be performed as follows: rated maximum continuous power for 30 minutes, followed by the rated ICR active maximum continuous power for 25 minutes.
(iv) The two hours of incremental cruise power required by § 33.87(d)(5) must be conducted between the rated ICR active maximum continuous power and the ground or minimum idle rotational speed.
(v) The thirty minutes of accelerations and decelerations required by § 33.87(d)(6) must be conducted as follows:
a. The higher condition must be the rated takeoff power during the first and fourth period and the rated ICR 2 minute power during the second, third, fifth and sixth periods.
b. The lower condition must be the rated ICR stand-by power condition or lower.
The requirements of § 33.89, except § 33.89(a)(3) should be as follows:
The minimum power response time to 95% rated takeoff power, from power lever positions representative of rated ICR stand-by power condition and of minimum flight idle, starting from stabilized idle operation, under the following engine load conditions:
i. No bleed air and power extraction for aircraft use.
ii. Maximum allowable bleed air and power extraction for aircraft use.
iii. An intermediate value for bleed air and power extraction representative of that which might be used as a maximum for aircraft during approach to a landing.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues this proposed rule and seeks public comment on a management measure proposed in Amendment 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf (Shrimp FMP) and this proposed rule. If implemented by NMFS, Amendment 19 and this proposed rule would extend the moratorium on the issuance of new commercial shrimp permits in the Gulf of America (Gulf). NMFS implemented the existing shrimp permit moratorium, which is set to expire after October 26, 2026, to stabilize fishing effort and prevent overcapacity in the Gulf shrimp fishery. This proposed rule would extend this permit moratorium for an additional 10 years.
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than September 24, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
An electronic copy of Amendment 19 is available from
Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The shrimp fishery in the Gulf is managed under the Shrimp FMP. The Shrimp FMP was prepared by NMFS and the Gulf Fishery Management Council (Council), 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). This action is proposed under the statutory authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b)(6).
Prior to 2001, approximately 4,000 vessels fished for shrimp annually in Federal waters of the Gulf. To improve the collection of fishing effort and catch data, NMFS implemented a Federal permit requirement for all vessels harvesting shrimp commercially from Gulf Federal waters through the final rule for Amendment 11 to the Shrimp FMP (67 FR 51074, August 7, 2002). Between 2002 and 2006, NMFS issued permits to approximately 2,951 vessels. During that time, the shrimp fishery experienced economic losses, primarily because of high fuel costs and reduced shrimp prices caused by competition from imports. These economic losses resulted in the exodus of vessels from the fishery and reduced fishing effort. Despite this exodus, the fishery remained overcapitalized, with more vessels than needed to harvest the available shrimp resources at the most profitable level. To prevent effort from returning to former levels that further reduced or removed profitability for the fleet overall, the Council recommended a 10-year moratorium on the issuance of new Federal commercial shrimp vessel permits through Amendment 13 to the Shrimp FMP, while still allowing for permit transferability. NMFS implemented the final rule for the moratorium on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006), and issued 1,933 vessel permits under the qualifying criteria of the 2006 rule by 2008.
The Council subsequently considered the need to continue limiting access to the fishery in Amendment 17A to the Shrimp FMP. The Council recommended extending the permit moratorium unchanged for an additional 10 years to maintain stability and prevent overcapacity in the shrimp fishery. The Council chose not to permanently limit access to the fishery at that time because economic conditions could change in the future. On August 22, 2016, NMFS implemented the final rule continuing the moratorium for an additional 10 years, through October 26, 2026 (81 FR 47733, July 22, 2016). Based on the rationale explained further in Amendment 19, the Council recommended continuing the permit moratorium for an additional 10 years to maintain stability and prevent overcapacity in the shrimp fishery.
Only a valid Gulf shrimp permit can be used to commercially harvest Gulf shrimp. A shrimp vessel permit remains valid if it is renewed and is renewable within 1 year of its expiration date. After 1 year from the expiration date with no renewal, a permit is terminated and permanently removed from the pool of available permits. From 2019 through 2023, the average annual number of vessels with valid Gulf shrimp moratorium permits was 1,376, though the number of vessels with permits declined each year during this time. In 2024, 1,287 moratorium permits were valid or renewable. Accordingly, since NMFS renewed the 1,933 shrimp vessel permits in 2008, the number of permits has decreased by 646. NMFS has permanently removed those 646 permits from the permit pool.
NMFS seeks public comment on the following management measure in this proposed rule.
If implemented by NMFS, Amendment 19 and this proposed rule would extend the moratorium on the issuance of new commercial shrimp vessel permits in the Gulf for an additional 10 years or through October 26, 2036. The purpose of this proposed rule is to continue limiting the total number of permits. Gulf shrimp stocks are currently healthy, but the previously mentioned non-regulatory issues continue to hinder the profitability of the commercial shrimp fleet and to cause the decline in shrimping effort throughout the Gulf.
NMFS expects this proposed rule would continue to result in positive impacts for those who hold Federal Gulf commercial shrimp permits because the permits would retain value as a limited asset, which would be lost if the moratorium were to expire. Permits would continue to be transferable, allowing for entry to and exit from the shrimp fishery. While new entrants would be required to pay more for a moratorium permit versus an open access permit, NMFS expects the benefits of this action to current permit holders would outweigh the cost to any new entrants. The cost of acquiring a shrimp moratorium permit, when compared to similar limited access commercial permits in other fisheries, is comparably low. For example, from 2022 through 2024, the median price to transfer a Federal Gulf shrimp permit was $5,250, when other permits can be several times more expensive.
Extending the moratorium would also provide the Council with time to re-evaluate the minimum shrimp permit threshold for optimizing yield in the fishery in light of new science and the current economic condition of the fishery. The Council established a threshold of 1,072 Gulf shrimp permits in Amendment 17B to the Shrimp FMP, and currently there are approximately 1,200 valid or renewable Gulf shrimp permits (82 FR 60564, December 21, 2017). The minimum permit threshold represents the predicted number of vessels needed to achieve aggregate optimum yield in the fishery, while accounting for high shrimp catch per unit effort and landings, and reducing the risk of exceeding thresholds of sea turtle and juvenile red snapper bycatch.
To further gauge industry's perspective on this issue, NMFS also requests public comment on an alternative option for implementing a shorter moratorium extension, for example, a 5-year extension, which would expire after October 26, 2031. A shorter timeframe would encourage the Council and NMFS to reconsider the need for the moratorium at an earlier point in time once the Council completes its re-evaluation of the appropriateness of the current minimum shrimp permit threshold. However, it should be noted that the moratorium could be eliminated at any time through a new FMP amendment and rulemaking.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 19, the Shrimp FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule.
Amendment 19 and this proposed rule address the expiration of the Federal shrimp permit moratorium in the Gulf by proposing to extend the moratorium for 10 years, to expire after October 26, 2036, for commercial shrimp vessels in the Gulf. The moratorium, first established for 10 years through Amendment 13 to the Shrimp FMP, and then renewed for another 10 years through Amendment 17A to the Shrimp FMP, is set to expire after October 26, 2026. The moratorium was implemented to create stability and prevent overcapacity in the Gulf shrimp fishery.
This proposed rule is expected to directly regulate all federally permitted commercial fishing businesses that participate in the Gulf shrimp fishery. None of the proposed changes would directly apply to federally permitted dealers or processors. Any change in the supply of shrimp available for purchase by dealers or processors because of the proposed rule, and associated economic effects, would be indirect effects of the proposed rule and would therefore fall outside the scope of the RFA. Additionally, as described in the Regulatory Impact Review of Amendment 19, by extending the moratorium, this proposed rule would be expected to increase barriers to entry for new participants compared with the status quo in which the moratorium would expire. The number of small entities that would intend to enter the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery in the future and their operating characteristics are unknown and cannot be estimated with available data.
From 2019 through 2023, the average annual number of vessels with valid Gulf shrimp moratorium permits was 1,376, though the number of vessels with permits declined each year during this time. As of December 31, 2024, there were 1,287 vessels with valid or renewable Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. From 2019 through 2023, the average number of vessels with valid permits that actively fished (
NMFS does not possess complete ownership data for businesses and vessels that participate in the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery. Therefore, it is not currently feasible to accurately determine affiliations between these particular businesses. As a result of the incomplete ownership data, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that each of the aforementioned vessels is independently owned by a single business, which is expected to result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule. Thus, this proposed rule is estimated to directly regulate up to 1,287 businesses in the commercial Gulf shrimp fishing industry.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including its affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard. No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.
The proposed extension of the moratorium on the issuance of new Federal shrimp permits would preserve the asset value of the permits to existing commercial fishing businesses that currently hold Federal shrimp permits. It would also prevent costs associated with overcapitalization and increased competition within the shrimp industry under open access, which would reduce profitability for commercial fishing businesses. These effects cannot be quantified with existing data. In summary, the proposed extension of the moratorium would improve the economic profitability of shrimp harvesters relative to the status quo in which the moratorium is set to expire after October 26, 2026. The extension of the moratorium would also increase barriers to entry for new participants relative to the status quo. However, factors such as increasing fuel prices, decreasing shrimp prices, and increased competition with imports are assumed to have a greater influence than the cost of a permit on the decision to enter the shrimp fishery.
Two alternatives to the proposed action to extend the Gulf Federal shrimp permit moratorium for 10 years were considered. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would allow the moratorium to expire after October 26, 2026. This alternative would revert the commercial shrimp fishery to open access. Under this alternative, Federal shrimp permits would cease to have any market value. From 2022 through 2024, the median price of a Federal Gulf shrimp permit was estimated to be $5,250. Although the number of potential permit buyers is not known, this loss in asset value would constitute adverse economic effects borne by current permit holders. Reverting to open access would, however, make it cheaper for new participants to obtain a permit and enter the fishery. This alternative was not selected because reverting to open access would fail to accomplish the intent of the moratorium, which was to help stabilize the shrimp fishery and prevent overcapacity. Open access would directly eliminate permit asset value and lead to broader negative impacts on fleet profitability, including overcapitalization, heightened competition, reduced catch per unit effort, and increasing the risk of exceeding thresholds of sea turtle and juvenile red snapper bycatch.
The second alternative would establish a limited access program for commercial shrimp vessels in the Gulf, replacing the open access permit and
This proposed rule does not contain a change to a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The existing collection of information requirements would continue to apply under the Office of Management and Budget Control Number 0648-0205, Southeast Region Permit Family of Forms.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting, Shrimp.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising the U.S. Standards for Grades of Mushrooms to add a grade for portabella mushrooms, remove size from the criteria for each grade and create a separate section for size, and revise the tolerances for defects consistent with modern production and handling practices. In addition, AMS is updating terminology, definitions, and defect scoring guides throughout the grade standards. These changes align the grade standards with modern harvesting practices and provide guidance for the effective utilization of this commodity.
Applicable September 24, 2026.
Andrew Buss, by phone at (231) 260-5913; fax at (540) 361-1199; or email at
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “[t]o develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”
AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards upon request. The U.S. Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables which no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are maintained by AMS at
On April 2, 2020, the American Mushroom Institute (AMI), a trade association representing growers, retailers, and shippers from the United States, petitioned AMS to revise the Standards. From 2020 to 2024, AMS worked closely with AMI to provide guidance and discuss the proposal, including relevant revisions. In its petition, AMI stated that USDA standards for mushrooms do not conform to current industry practices, and no standards for “Portabella” mushroom varieties exist. AMI also requested new definitions to cover defects that are not currently defined in the Standards. AMS reviewed and incorporated recommendations from AMI's petition and subsequent feedback into this revision, which reflects a collaborative effort between AMS and industry. The updates to the Standards, identified below, affect definitions, grades, size, and defects of mushrooms. On April 10, 2026, AMS published in the
Through this action, AMS is implementing the following revisions to the Standards to align with modern production, handling and harvesting practices, and to provide guidance for the effective utilization of this commodity:
• Add a new “General” section (51.3385) to describe the types of mushrooms covered by the Standards: the
• Redesignate existing sections 51.3385 through 51.3398 as sections 51.3386 through 51.3399.
• Add a new grade section (51.3388) “U.S. No. 1 Portabella” and its associated tolerances in section 51.3389(a)(3).
• Remove tolerance and size specifications from the criteria for each grade and create new separate sections (51.3389 and 51.3391, respectively) for those specifications.
• Revise the definition of “Open veils” (now section 51.3392(f)) to allow for a small degree of exposed gills before open veils are considered damage (materially detracting) in mushrooms other than portabella mushrooms, while also recognizing that open veils are a characteristic of and are not considered damage in portabella type mushrooms.
• Add a separate tolerance for open veils “at shipping point” for U.S. No. 1 grade button mushrooms (section 51.3389(a)(1)(i)).
• Revise the defect tolerances for “at shipping point” and “en route or at destination” for both U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 grades (section 51.3389 (a)(1)-(2)).
• Reorganize and update the definition section to reflect current industry practices and terminology, and revise “Damage” to now include the following specific defects that are considered as damage: “Bruising,” “Cuts or mechanical defects,” “Discoloration,” “Extraneous material,” “Feathering,” “Open veils,” and “Spots” (now sections 51.3392(a)-(g)). The existing defect at current 51.3395(b) (“Dirt when any amount is embedded in the cap or stem”) is now included under “Extraneous Material” at new 51.3392(d).
• Revise “Application of Tolerances” section (now 51.3390(a)-(c)) to establish different package tolerance limits based on the size of the packaging. The “Application of Tolerances” section of the Standards identifies the maximum limit of defects and off-size mushrooms that are allowed in an individual package of mushrooms.
• Add language to the newly designated grades provisions for “U.S. No. 1” (section 51.3386), “U.S. No. 1 Portabella” (section 51.3388) and definition of “Similar varietal
AMS provided a 60-day comment period for interested parties to submit comments on the proposed grade standards. In response to its request, AMS received and considered 9 comments. All comments were posted on
AMS is moving forward with the revisions to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Mushrooms as proposed by the American Mushroom Institute, as these updates will provide the clarity and consistency industry seeks by better aligning with modern mushroom production practices and current marketing trends.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the OMB approved emergency collection for the Temporary Final Rule “
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 26, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments by email to Nancy Kook, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Nancy Kook, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, phone 202-482-2440 or by email at
Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security administers the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulation which implements the priorities and allocations authority under Title I of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4501,
Directive Allocation Orders issued under the DPAS regulation will collect certain critical information from companies as specified in rules issued to effectuate Presidential Determination No. 2026-19 and ensure compliance with the DPAS regulation and the Directive Allocation Orders issued, as described in section 700.91 of the DPAS regulation. The details of the Directive Allocation Orders issued, including the records required to be submitted in accordance with section 700.91 of the DPAS regulation, were published in the August 6, 2026 Temporary Final Rule.
Electronic.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Further information on the application can be found here:
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before September 14, 2026. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 40005, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please also email a copy of those comments to
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The information is collected for the following purposes:
(1) NIST is required by 10 CFR 20.1502 to monitor individuals who may be exposed to ionizing radiation above specific levels. This form will be used to collect information associated with this monitoring and to determine the type of monitoring required.
(2) NIST is required by 10 CFR 20.2106 to maintain records of radiation exposure monitoring. This form will be used to ensure the exposure information collected is properly associated with the individual using unique identifiers. In addition, NIST must provide reports to the monitored individuals when requested and to the NRC annually. This form will be used to ensure the correct information is provided to the individual.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which help us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before October 26, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Jennifer Duane, Director, Grants Management, Administration, and Compliance, Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4874, Washington, DC 20230, or by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Jennifer Duane, Director, Grants Management, Administration, and Compliance, via telephone at (202) 482-1763, or via email at
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 2021 (Infrastructure Act or Act), which was adopted on November 15, 2021, provided $65 billion of funding for programs to close the digital divide and ensure that all Americans have access to high-speed broadband. NTIA administers multiple broadband connectivity grant programs funded by the Act, including the Competitive Grant Program (CGP) which is authorized under 47 U.S.C. 1724 (
NTIA will use the information collected from each applicant to effectively review the proposed applications and budgets from eligible entities as defined by 47 U.S.C. 1724(b).
NTIA will collect data through both electronic and mail submission.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility.
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, has submitted an information collection request (ICR) for the Current Population Survey Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Laura Schlachter, Ph.D., 202-855-2358, or by email at
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment on this information collection was published in the
The Serve America Act (2009) directs AmeriCorps to collect data that captures the broader concept of civic engagement (which includes but is not limited to formally volunteering through organizations). AmeriCorps' Office of Research and Evaluation recognizes that certain stakeholders would value more detailed data on formal volunteering. At this time, however, due to a policy Census introduced in 2022 to minimize respondent burden, AmeriCorps cannot add questions that would increase the length of the CEV. If Census recommendations change and resources allow AmeriCorps to add formal volunteering questions suggested by commenters in future rounds of data collection, the agency would seek a revision to reinstate two questions from the 2017 CEV about types of volunteer organizations (Q16b) and activities (Q16c). These questions underwent cognitive testing and validation as part of the original CEV design process and would generate valuable knowledge
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the DoD is modifying and reissuing a current system of records titled, Defense Travel System (DTS), DHRA 08 DoD. DTS provides a DoD-wide travel management process which covers all official travel, from pre-travel arrangements to post travel payments. This system of records is being combined with the DHRA system of records “Commercial Travel Information Management System (CTIM),” DHRA 14 DoD, to consolidate travel data management, enhance operational efficiency, and streamline reporting across the Department. DHRA 14 DoD will be rescinded upon publication of this modification. Additionally, the routine uses section (routine uses A, M, and R) was updated to expand and clarify the scope of disclosures. The DoD is also modifying various other sections within the system of records notice (SORN) to improve clarity or update information that has changed.
This system of records is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before September 24, 2026. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public that require modification and republication of the notice.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by either of the following methods:
*
*
Samuel Peterson, DHRA Component Privacy Officer, 400 Gigling Rd., Rm. DODC-MB 7028, Seaside, CA 93955,
DTS supports the DoD in managing temporary duty (TDY) travel by collecting and maintaining records necessary for the authorization, processing, and reimbursement of official travel. Records maintained in DTS include personal information, travel itineraries, financial data, and supporting documentation related to travel claims. These records are used to verify eligibility, facilitate travel arrangements, ensure compliance with applicable regulations, and process payments. DTS also captures audit trails and approval workflows to support oversight, accountability, and reporting requirements across DoD components. Subject to public comment, the DoD proposes revisions to the routine uses section. The routine uses section has been reorganized to present the DoD standard routine uses (A through J) at the beginning of the list, enhancing clarity and consistency. Routine Use (M) has been updated to expand and clarify the scope of disclosures to banking establishments, and routine use (R) was added to include the Department of the Treasury's Do Not Pay routine use clause. Additionally, the system purpose, categories of individuals, and categories of records have been restructured to reflect consolidation with the DHRA 14 DoD system of records. Additional updates include changes to the system location, system manager, authority for maintenance, record source categories, policies and practices for storage, retrieval, and disposal, safeguards, and procedures for access, contesting records, and notification.
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 lawful permanent resident.
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 system of records to the OMB and to Congress.
Defense Travel System, DHRA 08 DoD.
Unclassified.
A. Department of Defense (Department or DoD), located at 1000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1000, and other Department installations, offices, or mission locations.
B. Information may also be stored within a government-certified cloud, implemented and overseen by the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO), 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-6000.
The system managers for this system of records are as follows:
A. Deputy Director, Defense Travel Management Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350-6000; email:
B. For DTS Archive records: Deputy Director, Defense Travel System Archive, Defense Manpower Data Center, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-9000; email:
C. For ATRIP records: Chief, Program Integration Office, Cooperative Threat Reduction, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201; email:
5 U.S.C. 57, Travel, Transportation, and Subsistence; 10 U.S.C. 135, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 37 U.S.C. 463, Programs of Compliance, Electronic Processing of Travel Claims; 50 U.S.C. 3711, Authority to carry out Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; 41 CFR 300-304, The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); DTR 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation, Parts I—Passenger Movement, II Cargo Movement, III Mobility, IV Personal Property, V Customs; The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), Uniformed Service Members and DoD Civilian Employees; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5100.87, Department of Defense Human Resources Activity; DoDD 5105.62, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA); DoD Instruction 5154.31, Volumes 1-6, Commercial Travel Management: Defense Travel System (DTS); DoD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Vol. 9, Defense Travel System Regulation, current edition; DoD Directive 4500.09, Transportation and Traffic Management; DoD Instruction 1100.13, Surveys of DoD Personnel and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
A. DTS provides a DoD-wide travel management process that covers official TDY travel, from pre-travel arrangements to post-travel payments. DTS verifies individual travel information is accurate, current, and meets DoD foreign nation requirements for travel within the continental United States and outside the continental United States. The system facilitates the processing of official travel requests for DoD personnel and other individuals traveling on DoD travel orders. DTS provides information to financial systems to reimburse individual travel expenses, as well as to a commercial system to facilitate a voluntary rewards program for travelers using government travel charge cards (GTCC) for select purchases. DTS includes a tracking and reporting system to monitor travel authorizations, obligations, and payments. Additionally, the DoD uses DTS data to conduct surveys of program effectiveness, provide insight into the gap between product/service delivery and customer expectations, and assist in understanding the drivers of customer satisfaction.
B. The DTS business intelligence tool and archives provide a repository for reporting and archiving travel records. It assists with planning, budgeting, and allocating resources for future DoD travel, conducting oversight operations, analyzing travel, budgetary, or other trends, detecting fraud and abuse, and provides a mechanism for responding to authorized internal and external requests for data relating to DoD official travel and travel-related services.
C. The Commercial Travel Information Management (CTIM) establishes a repository of DoD travel records consisting of travel booked within the DTS as well as through commercial travel vendors in order to satisfy reporting requirements, identify and notify travelers in potential distress due to natural or man-made disaster, assist in the planning, budgeting, and allocation of resources for future DoD travel, conduct oversight operations, analyze travel, budgetary, or other trends, detect potential fraud and abuse, conduct surveys for the evaluation of program effectiveness, calculate travel and housing allowances, provide insight into the gap between product/service delivery and customer expectations, and assist in understanding what drives customer satisfaction, and respond to authorized internal and external requests for data relating to DoD official travel and travel related services, including premium class travel. In addition, CTIM contains rental car program data for US Federal Government travelers. CTIM also provides website-registered guests an online customer support site for submitting inquiries regarding commercial travel within the DoD, including assistance with DTS.
DoD civilian personnel, active, former, and retired military members, Reserve and National Guard personnel, military academy nominees, applicants, and cadets, all other individuals in receipt of DoD travel orders, dependents of DoD sponsors accompanying the DoD sponsors on travel, and registered website guests submitting inquiries regarding DoD commercial travel.
The following personal information is collected across both the Defense Travel System (DTS) and the Commercial Travel Information Management (CTIM) repository for managing DoD Travel.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Records and information stored in this system of records are obtained from: individual, authorized DoD personnel, the Defense Travel System Datamart, the General Services Administration data repository, commercial systems (travel global distribution systems including Sabre, Citi), DoD information systems via electronic import such as the Consolidated Travel Information Management (CTIM), Air Reserve Orders Writing System and Navy Reserve Order Writing System.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, all or a portion of the records or information contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a Routine Use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
B. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.
C. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.
D. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant and necessary to the proceeding.
E. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
F. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
G. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or confirms a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD determines as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
H. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
I. To another Federal, State or local agency for the purpose of comparing to the agency's system of records or to non-Federal records, in coordination with an Office of Inspector General in conducting an audit, investigation, inspection, evaluation, or other review as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.
J. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
K. To Federal and private entities providing travel services for purposes of arranging transportation at Government expense for official business.
L. To the Internal Revenue Service to provide information concerning the pay of travel allowances which are subject to federal income tax.
M. To banking establishments for the purpose of confirming billing or expense data, reconciling financial transactions, validating payment accuracy, and supporting audits or investigations related to travel expenditures.
N. To foreign or international law enforcement, security, or investigatory authorities to comply with requirements imposed by, or to claim rights conferred in, international agreements and arrangements, including those regulating the stationing and status in foreign countries of DoD military and civilian personnel.
O. To a federal agency, in response to its request in connection with an investigation of an employee, service member, or other authorized individual to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
P. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.
Q. To the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the Office of the Special Counsel, for the purpose of litigation, including administrative proceedings, appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM or component rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices; and administrative proceedings involving any individual subject of a DoD investigation, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.
R. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do No Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or
Records may be stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. Electronic records may be stored locally on digital media; in agency-owned cloud environments; or in vendor Cloud Service Offerings certified under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP).
Records may be retrieved by an individual's name, partial or full SSN, DoD Identification Number, passport number, email address, trip number, travel dates, travel destination, and DoD component. For U.S. citizens, retrieval may also include trip-specific details. For dependents, records may be accessed using the host employee's name, SSN, and DoD component affiliation.
A.
B.
Records are stored in office buildings protected by security guards, closed circuit TV, controlled screening, use of visitor registers, electronic access, key cards, ID badges, and/or locks. Access to the system's data is controlled using intrusion detection systems, firewalls, a virtual private network, and DoD public key infrastructure certificates. Procedures are in place to deter and detect browsing and unauthorized access. To access the records, personnel are assigned role-based access and must complete two-factor authentication using a common access card credential and password/PIN. Access to records is limited to individuals who are properly screened and cleared on a need-to-know basis in the performance of their official duties. Physical and electronic access is limited to persons responsible for servicing and authorized to use the record system. The backups of data are encrypted and secured. The program office conducts security audits and monitors security practices.
Individuals seeking access to their records should follow the procedures in 32 CFR part 310. Individuals seeking access to the records contained in DTS, the DTS Archive, or CTIM should address written inquiries to: Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Requests for records maintained in the ATRIP: the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Office Request Center, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201.
Signed, written requests for DTS, DTS Archive, and ATRIPS records should include: the name and number of this system of records notice, along with full name, SSN (if applicable), office or organization where assigned when trip was taken, travel destination, and dates of travel.
Signed, written requests for CTIM records should include: the name and number of this system of records notice along with full name, current address, phone number, and personal email address of the individual. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the appropriate format:
If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”
Individuals seeking to amend or correct the content of records about them should follow the procedures in 32 CFR part 310.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should follow the instructions for Record Access Procedures above.
None
March 27, 2020, 85 FR 17319; March 24, 2010, 75 FR 14142.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a new matching program.
This Computer Matching Agreement verifies the eligibility of Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries who are Medicare eligible to receive TRICARE Benefits.
Comments will be accepted on or before September 24, 2026. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments have been received from interested members of the public that require modification and republication of the notice.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Ms. Rahwa Keleta, Chief, Privacy and Civil Liberties Division at (703) 571-0070.
The DoD, Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) will provide the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) a list of specific data elements for all DoD eligible beneficiaries both over and under the age of 65. CMS will: (1) match the individuals provided by DMDC against the information found in CMS's “Enrollment Database (EDB)” system of records; (2) validate the identification of the individual against CMS beneficiary records based on Social Security Number (SSN) and date of birth; (3) provide the individual's Medicare Beneficiary Identifier (MBI), Medicare enrollment status, and address in the response file to DMDC. After receipt of the response file from CMS, DMDC will update the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) with appropriate Medicare information provided in the response file. The verified identification of eligible beneficiaries and their current Medicare enrollment status is maintained in DEERS for use by the Defense Health Agency in the management of its programs.
Personnel Readiness Management Activity (PRMA), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of revised per diem rates in non-foreign areas outside the continental United States (U.S.).
PRMA publishes this Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 332. Bulletin Number 332 lists current per diem rates prescribed for reimbursement of subsistence expenses while on official Government travel to Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the U.S. The Calendar Year (CY) 2026 lodging rate review for Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa resulted in rate changes for multiple locations.
The updated rates take effect September 1, 2026.
Dwayne A. Norman II, 571-372-1300,
This document notifies the public of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee for travel to non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. The CY 2026 lodging rate review for Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa resulted in lodging rate increases for multiple locations. Bulletin Number 332 is published in the
If you believe the lodging, meal or incidental allowance rate for a locality listed in the following table is insufficient, you may request a rate review for that location. For more information about how to request a review, please see the Defense Travel Management Office's Per Diem Rate Review Frequently Asked Questions page at
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a new matching program.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 and the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Amendments of 1990 (Privacy Act), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the conduct of matching programs, notice is hereby given of the establishment of a matching program between the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service). The matching program allows Fiscal Service to provide services relating to the identification, prevention, and/or recovery of improper payments pursuant to the Do Not Pay program operating under 31 U.S.C. 3554.
Submit your comments on the proposed establishment of the matching program on or before September 24, 2026.
The matching program will become effective 30 days after the publication of this notice on August 25, 2026, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public requiring modification and republication of the notice. The matching program will continue through September 10, 2029.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Carolyn Dempster, Supervisory Financial Management Analyst, Office of Finance and Operations, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6303.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, published in the
The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3351
The Department, in coordination with Treasury, has determined that the DNP matching program described in this notice is eligible for the waiver described in OMB Memorandum M-25-32, which is effective from September 10, 2025 through September 10, 2029.
Authority for maintenance of the EDCAPS system includes section 415 of the Department of Education Organization Act (Pub. L. 96-88, 20 U.S.C. 3475); 31 U.S.C. 3321 (note); 31 U.S.C. 3512 (including the note) and 3515; 31 U.S.C. 7504; 31 U.S.C. 902(a); Executive Order (E.O.) 9397 (8 FR 16095), as amended by E.O. 13478 (73 FR 70239), and 31 U.S.C. 7701 (TIN); 31 U.S.C. 3711-3720E.
Authority for maintenance of the FMS system is Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), (20 U.S.C. 1070
• Individuals who have received funds through the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Scholarship program and who have not provided evidence of fulfilling their obligations under that program.
• Current and former Department employees who received overpayments and the overpayments have not been waived by the Department.
• Individuals who were overpaid or inappropriately paid under grant programs administered by the Department other than Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
• Individual borrowers who are entitled to a refund of an overpayment or discharge, or both.
• Claims against individuals, including orders by a court or other authority to make restitution, for the misuse of Federal funds in connection with any program administered by the Department.
Applicant's name (which may include individual name and/or business names, if applicable); Social Security Number (SSN); State and federal Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN); Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN); home and work address(es); bank account information, including account number and financial institution routing and transit number; and tracking numbers used to locate payment information.
Treasury will use the system of records entitled “Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service .017—Do Not Pay Payment Verification Records”, last published in full in the
The Department will disclose data from the system of records entitled “Education Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS)” (18-04-04), which was most recently published in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Below is a list of the ED programs that will match records with the DNP Working System, and the applicable system of records notice(s) for each program. For purposes of this notice, matching activities conducted between the Federal benefit programs listed in the following appendix and the DNP Working System constitute a single agency-wide matching program.
Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of a New Matching Program.
This matching program will assist the U.S. Department of Education (Department or ED) in its obligation to ensure that borrowers whom the Social Security Administration (SSA) identifies as disabled with Medical Improvement Not Expected (MINE) status and who either owe balances on or who have had any of loans made under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) written off due to default for the Federal Perkins Loan Program (20 U.S.C. 1087aa
Submit your comments on the proposed re-establishment of the matching program on or before September 24, 2026.
The matching program will become effective on the later of the following two dates: (1) October 1, 2026, or (2) 30 days after the publication of this notice, on August 25, 2026, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public requiring modification and republication of the notice. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be renewed for up to an additional 12 months if, within 3 months prior to the expiration of the 18 months, the respective Data Integrity Boards of ED and the SSA determine that the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.
Comments must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Corinne Sauri, Management and Program Analyst, Office of Operations and Governance, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 77 K Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Telephone: (202) 245-5612.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, published in the
The U.S. Department of Education and the Social Security Administration.
ED's legal authority to enter into this agreement and to disclose information under this agreement is sections 420N(c), 437(a)(1), 455(a)(1), and 464(c)(1)(F)(ii & iii) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070g-2(c), 1087(a)(1), 1087e(a)(1), and 1087dd(c)(1)(F)(ii & iii)). SSA's legal authority to disclose information under this agreement is section 1106 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1306) and the regulations promulgated pursuant to that section (20 CFR part 401). Subsection (b)(3) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)) allows SSA to make the disclosure without the prior written consent of the individuals to whom the records pertain.
This matching program will assist ED in allowing borrowers who have balances on Title IV loans or have had Title IV loans written off due to default and recipients of TEACH Grants who have service or repayment obligations whom SSA identifies as disabled with MINE status using data about disability onset dates and review cycles, should they wish to do so, to more efficiently and effectively apply for TPD discharge of their Title IV loans or TEACH Grant service or repayment obligations. ED proactively sends notices to such Title IV borrowers and TEACH Grant recipients whom SSA identifies as disabled. The notice informs the individual that ED will discharge the borrowers' Title IV loans or recipients' TEACH Grants with service or repayment obligations. ED will not process the discharge earlier than 61 days after the notice date, unless within 60 days of that date, the individual either chooses an earlier discharge or chooses to opt out of the TPD discharge process. The notices also inform these Title IV borrowers and TEACH Grant recipients that ED will accept their matched MINE information in lieu of the submission of a paper application and SSA certification letter to ED. If Title IV student loan borrowers and TEACH Grant recipients do not apply for the TPD loan discharge, their SSA benefits may be offset to repay their Title IV loans or TEACH Grants with repayment obligations.
This matching program covers veterans whom the VA has designated as having a service-connected disability rating that is 100 percent disabling or being totally disabled based on an individual unemployability rating, as described in 38 CFR 3.4(b) and 3.340, and who have title IV loans (as defined above).
This matching program covers the following records on the aforementioned individuals: the name (first, middle, and last), date of birth (DOB), and Social Security number (SSN), and an indicator if the medical data in SSA's Disability Control File (DCF) indicates MINE status.
SSA will disclose to ED information from the DCF, which originates from the system of records identified as “Completed Determination Record—Continuing Disability Determinations” (60-0050), last published in full in the
ED will disclose information to SSA from the system of records entitled “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06), the system of records notice last published in full in the
ED will maintain information obtained from SSA in the NSLDS (18-11-06), and in “Aid Awareness and Application Processing (18-11-21)”, as last published in full in the
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
This notice revises the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) schedule for processing the original license application for the Elizabeth Webbing Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 15041, which was filed by One Drop Hydro, LLC (One Drop) on June 10, 2025. On June 23, 2025, Commission staff issued a notice of application tendered for filing, which included an initial processing schedule.
On July 31, 2026, Commission staff requested that One Drop resolve deficiencies and provide additional information on the application by October 29, 2026.
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Brandi Welch-Acosta at (202) 502-8964 or at
On February 27, 2025, Green Mountain Power Corporation filed an application to relicense the 1,485-kilowatt Glen Hydroelectric Project No. 8405. The project is located on the Mascoma River in Grafton County, New Hampshire.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on May 29, 2026, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
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
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Steve Kartalia by telephone at (202) 502-6131 or by email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection renewal and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections FERC-606: Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for Further Information and FERC-607: Report on Decision or Action on Request for Federal Authorization (OMB Control No 1902-0241) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. There are no proposed changes to the reporting requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 24, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-606 and FERC-607 to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
FERC-607 requires federal and state agencies or officials to submit to the Commission a copy of a decision or action on a request for federal authorization and an accompanying index to the documents and materials relied on in reaching a conclusion.
These information collections can neither be discontinued nor collected less frequently because of statutory
• Establish a schedule for agencies to review requests for federal authorizations required for a project, and
• Compile a record of each agency's decision, together with the record of the Commission's decision, to serve as a consolidated record for the purpose of appeal or review, including judicial review.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-725E (1902-0246), (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council) for the retirement of Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-3 (Contingency Reserves). The comment period ended on July 6, 2026, with no comments received.
Comments on the collection of information are due September 24, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-725E to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Contact: Kayla Williams at
WECC promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection and is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement. In addition, WECC provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the WECC Bylaws.
There are several regional Reliability Standards in the WECC region. These regional Reliability Standards generally require entities to document compliance with substantive requirements, retain documentation, and submit reports to WECC.
In RD26-5-000, FERC is retiring Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-3 (Contingency Reserve), which requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to document compliance with the contingency reserve requirements. NERC and WECC explain that “Regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-3 requires applicable WECC entities to maintain reserves at levels that exceed those required under the continent-wide Reliability Standard BAL-002-3—Disturbance Control Standard—Contingency Reserve for Recovery from a Balancing Contingency Event. Following a recent review of the regional standard, WECC identified that no technical basis supports the continued applicability of the standard, and that rather than advance reliability in the Western Interconnection, the regional standard may be presenting unnecessary challenges.
The individual burden estimates include the time needed to gather data, run studies, and analyze study results. These are consistent with estimates for similar tasks in other Commission-approved standards. Estimates for the additional average annual burden and cost
On December 6, 2024, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (OPC) filed an application to relicense the 904-megawatt (MW) Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 2725. The project is located on Heath Creek, near the Town of Rome, Floyd County, Georgia.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on May 13, 2026, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that relicensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
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
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to David Gandy at 202-502-8560 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Qualifying Facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On February 11, 2026, and supplemented and amended on June 8, 2026 and July 30, 2026, DeepGreen Western Passage SPV LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the DeepGreen Western Passage Subsea-Compute & Infrastructure Hub Project No. 15424-000 (project), to be located in the Western Passage of the Bay of Fundy in the North Atlantic Ocean near the Town of Eastport, Washington County, Maine. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following new features: (1) a 3.5-meter-high and 24-meter-wide subsea modular universal docking cradle; (2) thirty-four 12-meter-long and 4.2-meter-diameter subsea compute pods; (3) a 1.8-meter-diameter spherical and elevated tidal sensing power platform; (4) up to 16 marine hydrokinetic turbine-generator units, each rated at 300-kilowatt (kW); and (5) a 1.5-mile-long hybrid power-and-fiber subsea cable operating at 13.8 kilovolts (kV). The proposed project would be configured as a behind-the-meter captive generation loop without a grid connection.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 19, 2026. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed on the Commission's website (
On July 22, 2026, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (New Hamshire DES) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a complete request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Power House Systems, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project, on June 3, 2026. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If New Hamshire DES 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).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725S (OMB Control No. 1902-0270), Emergency Preparedness and Operations (EOP) Reliability Standards.
Comments on the collections of information are due October 26, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
For providing accurate reporting of events to NERC's event analysis group to review the impact on the reliability of the bulk electric system, staff estimates that for EOP-004-5, fifty percent of the applicable entities will have an annual reporting burden, and this is captured in the associated table below.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or the Agency) open literature search in support of the ongoing registration review of glyphosate. This open literature search is intended to inform the hazard assessment for the upcoming updated glyphosate human health risk assessment, currently scheduled to be completed in late 2026. EPA is soliciting comments on the completeness of the Agency's open literature search results, and this notice opens a comment period on the open literature search.
Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361, through
Cathryn Britton, Risk Management and Implementation Branch 5, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-2339; email address:
This notice is directed to the public in general and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm workers, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
Do not submit CBI to EPA through
When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at
The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is currently reevaluating glyphosate as part of registration review, which is required by law every 15 years to ensure that pesticide products on the market continue to meet the statutory standard for registration as science evolves and new information becomes available. In addition to guideline studies, required under 40 CFR part 158, and non-guideline studies that are submitted to the EPA to support pesticide registration, EPA searches for relevant studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in the open literature. In the case of glyphosate, there are a large number of independent studies available in the open literature. Since the initiation of Registration Review, EPA has performed multiple searches of open literature to identify, screen, and evaluate potentially relevant studies using systematic review approaches consistent with Executive Order 14303, Restoring Gold Standard Science and Gold Standard Science (90 FR 22601; May 23, 2025) objectives. In addition, EPA has received additional studies to consider during public comment periods in the Registration Review
The objective of this public comment period is to solicit public input to identify and submit any relevant, peer-reviewed studies that are not included in this list of studies for consideration as part of the upcoming updated human health risk assessment, which is targeted for completion in late 2026 and subsequent release for public comment. For the Agency to consider any submitted data or studies, there must be open access to the article or study report and its supporting data. When providing input to EPA, commenters should include the full citation reference to the article that includes the study author(s), date of publication, journal title, and the article title.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2026-1849, is available online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the applicable period.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA section 5(a) and make specific findings pertaining to whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C).
TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA identifies the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. For the findings made during this period, the following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if the specific name is claimed as confidential).
• P-26-0024, Maleated polyalkene, aminoethyl substituted heteromonocycle, carbopolycycle alkoxylated (Generic Name).
• J-26-0001, Modified
To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C), lookup the specific case number at
15 U.S.C. 2601
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than September 9, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the information collection requirements contained in the agency's rule governing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (the Safeguards Rule). The current clearance expires on December 31, 2026.
Comments must be filed by October 26, 2026.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Katherine McCarron, Attorney, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2333;
The Safeguards Rule as amended requires financial institutions to report to the Commission a notification event where unencrypted customer information involving 500 or more consumers is acquired without authorization.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for this information collection requirement contained in the Safeguards Rule.
FTC staff estimates that the reporting requirement will affect approximately 163 financial institutions each year.
The estimated labor cost reflects the hourly wages necessary to prepare the required reports. FTC staff anticipates that the required information will be compiled by information security analysts in the course of assessing and responding to a notification event, resulting in 3 hours of labor at a mean hourly wage of $63.71 (3 hours × $63.71 = $191.13).
Covered financial institutions are not likely to require any significant capital costs to comply with the reporting requirement. To reduce burden on affected financial institutions, the Commission provides an online reporting form on the Commission's website to facilitate reporting of qualifying security events. As a result, the Commission does not anticipate that covered financial institutions will incur any new capital or non-labor costs in complying with the reporting requirement.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (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.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before October 26, 2026. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Paperwork Reduction Act Comment: FTC File No. R021101,” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before October 26, 2026. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) seeks comments and suggestions from the public in response to one question:
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 26, 2026.
Submissions may be sent electronically to
Questions about this request for information should be directed to Laura Cole, Ph.D., The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 31 Center Drive, Suite 3C25, Bethesda, MD 20892,
This notice is in accordance with the 21st Century Cures Act, wherein NIH institutes are required to regularly update their strategic plans. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) was established as a new institute within NIH when President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 100-553 into law on October 28, 1988. The NIDCD mission is to conduct and support research and research training in the normal and disordered processes of hearing, balance, taste, smell, voice, speech, and language. Our vision is Advancing the science of communication to improve lives. To get us there, NIDCD seeks your best ideas to help as we develop our 2028-2032 Strategic Plan.
This RFI is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation for applications or proposals, or as an obligation in any way on the part of the United States Federal government. The Federal government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for the government's use. Additionally, the government cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information provided.
The Director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Debara L. Tucci, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Alycia Booth, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Registration is not required to attend this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website at
Open: 8:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Registration is not required to attend the open portion of this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, October 15, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to October 16, 2026, 5:00 p.m., National Institute of Health, Building 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The DKBSC is changing the meeting date and time from a two-day meeting, October 15-16, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., to a one-day meeting on November 20, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Open session and public attendance will be from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., the meeting will then be closed to the public from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; the meeting will then hold Open session from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The location of the meeting has also changed from Building 10 to Building 5. This meeting will be virtual and partially Closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit
Notice.
FDIC, NCUA, OCC, CFPB, HUD, DOJ, and FHFA (collectively, the agencies) are issuing this notice to inform the public of the rescission of the “
In accordance with Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,”
Furthermore, Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,”
The 2022 Interagency Statement encouraged creditors to offer special purpose credit programs that “meet the credit needs of specified classes of persons” and gave assurances to participants that were uncertain about the permissibility of such credit programs. However, the Interagency Statement referenced a provision of Regulation B, Equal Credit Opportunity Act's (ECOA) implementing regulation, that has since been amended.
The agencies have already taken a number of actions to withdraw or revise their own guidance, consistent with those nondiscrimination principles, as listed below:
• “FHEO Statement on the Fair Housing Act and Special Purpose Credit Programs” issued by HUD on December 7, 2021, and withdrawn as of September 17, 2025;
• “Office of General Counsel Guidance on the Fair Housing Act's Treatment of Certain Special Purpose Credit Programs That are Designed and Implemented in Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B” issued by HUD on
• Advisory Opinion entitled “Equal Credit Opportunity (Regulation B); Special Purpose Credit Programs” issued by CFPB on December 21, 2020, and withdrawn as of June 17, 2026.
It is the shared view of the agencies that rescission of the Interagency Statement is necessary to ensure that creditors do not rely on it to engage in discriminatory activities that are inconsistent with ECOA and Regulation B and, to the extent applicable, the FHA.
For the reasons stated in this notice, the agencies rescind the guidance provided in the Interagency Statement, effective immediately. All special purpose credit programs must comply with ECOA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, and the FHA. Federal law does not authorize any generalized remedial “equity” initiatives absent specific cases of unlawful discrimination, and creditors should not rely upon previous guidance which may have suggested otherwise.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 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 submitted within 60 days of publication of this notice to
Christine Brown, Senior Management and Program Analyst, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4262, Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Additional OMB control numbers applicable to government-wide standardized forms are also noted in this collection. As the burden is accounted for in those separate collections, it is not included in this calculation.
Information Collection/Form Number:
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.
Assistant Secretary for the Office of 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 7th 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. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 30) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is hereby terminated.
B. Rashmi Borah, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2518. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On November 28, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed by BH Innovations LLC of New York, New York, as amended to add additional complainants Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd., both of Dublin, Ireland (“Complainants”).
On July 16, 2026, Complainants filed a second amended motion for termination of the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)). The second amended motion stated that Respondents do not oppose the motion. The second amended motion includes unredacted copies of settlement agreements that were not properly included with the original motion, filed on June 25, 2026, or with the first amended motion, also filed on July 16, 2026. On June 26, 2026, respondents HKC Corporation Ltd., Chongqing HKC Optoelectronics, HKC Overseas Ltd., Hisense USA Corporation, Hisense Co., Ltd., Hisense International Co., Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and Westinghouse Electric Corporation filed a statement of non-opposition to Complainants' original motion.
On July 22, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 30) terminating the investigation as to all respondents. The subject ID confirms that Complainants' second amended motion complies with Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)) and finds that terminating the investigation will conserve public and private resources. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on August 20, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel grating from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
August 4, 2026.
Rachel Devenney (202) 205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Willow Innovations, Inc. and Willow Blossom HoldCo Ltd. on August 20, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable breast pumps, associated milk storage containers, and components thereof. The complaint names as a respondent: Shenzhen Root Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Hong Kong Lute Technology Co., Ltd. of Aurora, CO; Root Technology, Ltd. of Beverly Hills, CA; Share Info, Inc. of Flushing, NY; Shenzhen TPH Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Guangdong Horigen Mother & Baby Products Co., Ltd. of China; Anker Innovations Limited of China; Fantasia Trading, LLC of Ontario, CA; Power Mobile Life LLC of Bellevue, WA; TPH Technology Malaysia Sdn Bhd of Malaysia; Foshan Shunde Ruiteng Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (a.k.a Joystar Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Co., Ltd.) of China; and Guangdong Youmeng Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation 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 requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial 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 requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3932”) 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. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Chattem Chemicals has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 20, 2026, Chattem Chemicals, 3801 Saint Elmo Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409-1237, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture bulk controlled substances for sale to its customers. The company plans to import an intermediate of Tapentadol (9780), to bulk manufacture Tapentadol for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Scottsdale Research Institute SRI Montana Satellite Laboratory has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 17, 2026, Scottsdale Research Institute SRI Montana Satellite Laboratory, 426 Deer Creek Road, Lakeside, Montana 59922, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) to support internal research and clinical trials, while also supplying other schedule I researchers who are collaborating on clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Biopharmaceutical Research Company has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 24, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 24, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 14, 2026, Biopharmaceutical Research Company, 11045 Commercial Parkway, Castroville, California 95012-3209, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances as flowering plants and cannabis derivatives to support analytical chemistry analyses, research and the manufacturing of dosage forms for preclinical and clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Curia New York Inc has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 10, 2026, Curia New York Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144-2951, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to manufacture the above listed controlled substances as bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients for use in product development and for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Prof Compounding CTS of Ameri has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 24, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 24, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is a notice that on July 7, 2026, Prof Compounding CTS of Ameri, 9901 South Wilcrest Drive, Houston, Texas 77099-5132, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import Morphine Sulfate USP as a narcotic raw material for domestic bulk manufacturing and supply under the ASPR Strategic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients Reserve (SAPIR) Program. The imported material will be used to support the strategic domestic supply of essential controlled substance Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for national preparedness and resilience, including conversion into finished pharmaceutical products by qualified U.S. manufacturers as needed. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Galephar Pharmaceutical Research Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 24, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 24, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on July 20, 2026, Galephar Pharmaceutical Research Inc., #100 Carr 198, Industrial Park, Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777-3873, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical purposes only. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
On October 22, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Catina Allen, N.P., of Muncie, Indiana (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MA8433233, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Indiana, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, effective March 24, 2025, both Registrant's Indiana Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) Prescriptive Authority license and Registrant's Indiana Controlled Substances Registration (CSR) Prescriptive Authority license were placed into a “Current/Not Practicing” status due to Registrant failing to maintain a current/active collaboration practice agreement with an Indiana licensed practitioner. RFAAX 2, at 2. Further, both licenses were set to expire by their own terms on October 31, 2025.
According to Indiana online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Indiana statute, and subject to exceptions irrelevant here, “[e]very person who dispenses or proposes to dispense any controlled substance within Indiana must have a registration issued by the [Indiana Board of Pharmacy] in accordance with the board's rules.” Ind. Code 35-48-3-3(b) (2025). Further, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner and includes the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Indiana because her Indiana CSR Prescriptive Authority license is expired. As discussed above, a person must hold an Indiana controlled substances registration to dispense a controlled substance in Indiana. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Indiana, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. MA8433233, issued to Catina Allen, N.P. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Catina Allen, N.P., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Catina
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 18, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Biopharmaceutical Research Company has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 14, 2026, Biopharmaceutical Research Company, 11045 Commercial Parkway, Castroville, California 95012-3209, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to provide Pharmaceutical-grade marihuana in order to facilitate research in a manner that complies with local, state, and federal regulations. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Chattem Chemicals has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 20, 2026, Chattem Chemicals, 3801 Saint Elmo Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409-1237, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk distribution and sale to its customers. In reference to dug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Kinetochem LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 7, 2026, Kinetochem LLC, 96 Market Street, Suite 102, Georgetown, Texas 78626-3618, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substance as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients to its customers as well as for research and clinical trials. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Curia Missouri Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 26, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 26, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 14, 2026, Curia Missouri Inc., 2460 West Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Vici Health Sciences, LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 24, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before September 24, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 1, 2026, Vici Health Sciences, LLC, 6655 Amberton Drive, Suite O Elkridge, Maryland 21075-6202, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance as part of a manufacturing process supporting research and clinical trial efforts. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of revision of a currently approved information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by September 24, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
Since the mid-1960s, neutral buoyancy has been an invaluable tool for testing procedures, developing hardware, and training astronauts. Neutrally buoyant conditions sufficiently simulate reduced gravity conditions, comparable to the environmental challenges of space. The Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides opportunities for astronauts to practice future on-orbit procedures, such as extravehicular activities (EVA), and to work through simulation exercises to solve problems encountered on-orbit. NASA hires individuals with demonstrated diving experience as NBL Working Divers in teams comprised of four divers; two safety divers, one utility diver, and one cameraman to assist astronauts practice various tasks encountered in space.
NASA allows guest divers, typically non-federal photographers representing the media, opportunities to engage in the NBL diving experience. To participate, guest divers must present a dive physical, completed within one year of the targeted diving opportunity, for review by the NBL Dive Physician.
If the guest diver does not have a current U.S. Navy, Association of Diving Contractors (ADC), or current British standard for commercial diving physical, they are required to complete a medical examination, performed by a certified Diving Medical Examiner. The results of the physical will be documented by on the JSC Form 1830 “Report of Medical Examination” for Applicant and presented for review prior to participating in diving activities conducted at the JSC NBL. The associated cost for guest divers to complete the medical examination will vary, typically based on the guest diver's insurance.
A completed JSC Form 1830 with test results attached as applicable, must be submitted to enable NASA to validate an individual's physical ability to dive in the NBL at NASA Johnson Space Center.
NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Section 203(a)(3), as amended states “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof”, and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the Nation's aeronautics and space programs.
Paper, Email
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Revision of a currently approved information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections.
Comments are due by September 24, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, or email
Federal agencies are required by statute not to engage in discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, genetic information, or retaliation. A federal employee, former employee, or job applicant who believes s/he was discriminated against has a right to file a complaint with the agency's office responsible for its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs. Federal agencies must offer pre-complaint counseling or EEO alternative dispute resolution (EEO ADR) to individuals who allege that they were discriminated against by the agency. If pre-complaint counseling or EEO ADR does not resolve the dispute(s), the individual can file a formal discrimination complaint with the agency's EEO office.
NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Section 203(a)(3), as amended states “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof”, and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the Nation's aeronautics and space programs.
Paper and electronically.
Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1614 Section 104 requires agencies to establish procedures for processing individual and class complaints of discrimination that include the provisions contained in 29 CFR 1614.105 through 1614.110 and in § 1614.204, which are consistent with all other applicable Federal EEO regulations and complaint processing requirements contained in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Management Directives (MD).
When an individual decides to pursue the formal discrimination complaint process, EEOC MD 110 requires that the formal complaint must be:
• In writing;
• Specific with regard to the claim(s) that the individual raised in pre-complaint counseling and that the person wishes to pursue;
• Signed by the individual and/or his or her representative; and
• Filed within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date s/he receives the Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint.
Consequently, NASA established NF-1355P form to ensure the individual who wishes to utilize the EEO process complies with the requirements listed above.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for an exemption requested by SMR, LLC on behalf of Palisades SMR, LLC (Palisades SMR), associated with certain excavation support activities for the proposed dual-unit SMR-300 plant, Pioneer Units 1 and 2, at the Palisades Energy Center in Covert, Michigan. Specifically, Palisades SMR is requesting an exemption, pursuant to NRC regulations, to allow for construction of support of excavation (SOE) walls during SMR-300 excavation and prior to issuance of a Limited Work Authorization (LWA), if approved. Based on the analyses presented in the EA, the NRC staff determined that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with granting the requested exemption.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on August 24, 2026.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2026-0265 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:
•
•
•
Robert Hoffman, Office of Advanced Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1107; email:
By letter dated December 31, 2025 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML25365A983), SMR, LLC, submitted the first part (Part 1) of a phased construction permit (CP) application to the NRC on behalf of Palisades SMR for a dual-unit SMR-300 plant, Pioneer Units 1 and 2, which would be co-located with the Palisades Nuclear Plant at the Palisades Energy Center in Covert, MI. The NRC determined that Part 1 of the phased construction permit CP application was acceptable for docketing on February 13, 2026 (ADAMS Accession No. ML26041A223).
Part 1 of the phased CP application includes a LWA request pursuant to paragraph 50.10(d) of title 10 of the
Part 1 of the phased CP application includes an exemption request from 10 CFR 50.10(c) to allow for construction of SOE walls, which would remain in place after construction is complete. The proposed exemption would allow Palisades SMR to proceed, prior to issuance of an LWA, if approved, with this limited construction activity. Palisades SMR has requested that the NRC consider and approve the exemption independently of, and prior to, completion of the NRC's review of the remainder of Part 1 of the phased CP application. Granting this exemption request would not constitute a commitment by the NRC to issue an LWA or CP for Pioneer Units 1 and 2, and Palisades SMR would perform the excavation support activities assuming the risk that its CP application may later be denied.
The NRC has prepared an EA (ADAMS Accession No. ML26230A249) as part of its review of the exemption request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21, “Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments.” Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined not to prepare an EIS and is issuing a FONSI pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31.
The proposed Federal action is NRC approval of Palisades SMR's request for an exemption from the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 50.10(c), which would allow construction of SOE walls during SMR-300 excavation and prior to issuance of an LWA, if approved by the NRC. Palisades SMR plans to install three different permanent retaining wall designs: diaphragm walls, soldier pile soil mixed walls, and perimeter cutoff walls. Tieback anchors would be used, as necessary, to support the differing wall designs. To accomplish the proposed Federal action, the reinforced concrete panel diaphragm walls, soldier pile soil mixed walls, and perimeter cutoff walls (all part of the SOE walls) would be installed using traditional construction techniques.
SOE walls would remain in place after construction is complete. Issuance of the exemption would allow Palisades SMR to proceed with SOE wall installation, prior to issuance of an LWA, if approved. Palisades SMR asserts that the SOE wall installation serves no function with respect to structural components of the containment structures (CS), reactor auxiliary building (RAB), or intermediate building (IB) support or radiological health or safety but is needed for construction worker safety during excavation. If excavation is delayed until after the issuance of the LWA, if approved by the NRC, activities for the below grade portions of the CS, RAB, IB and portions of select systems, structures, and components could add a significant time delay and construction costs to the Pioneer Units 1 and 2 project. Delaying the construction of Pioneer Units 1 and 2 could also delay the addition of 680 megawatts of energy and a reliable lower cost energy supply in the State of Michigan. Palisades SMR anticipates that the cost of any delay of the commercial operation of Pioneer Units 1 and 2 would be substantial.
In the EA, the NRC staff evaluated the proposed action to identify resource areas that could be affected and the potential for environmental impacts. This evaluation considered the nature and scope of the proposed activities and site-specific information. Based on this review, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action would not result in significant impacts to land use,
The NRC staff also considered the alternative of denying the exemption request and determined that denial of the exemption request would avoid the environmental impacts discussed in this EA unless the NRC grants the applicant's request for an LWA in Part 1 of the phased CP application, in which case the impacts would then be delayed and incurred during LWA activities, if approved. A denial of this exemption and subsequent delay of the excavation-related activities, if the LWA is approved, could result in project costs and schedule delays to the Pioneer Units 1 and 2 project. Accordingly, the NRC staff determined that there are no alternatives that meet the need for the proposed action and that are environmentally preferable to the proposed action.
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to issue the exemption authorizing the construction of permanent SOE walls during excavation activities and prior to issuance of an LWA, if approved. As required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared the EA. This FONSI incorporates by reference the EA summarized in Section II of this notice. Based on the analysis presented in the EA, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that the preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed Federal action and that a FONSI is warranted. This finding and the related environmental documents referenced throughout the EA are available for public review as discussed in the EA and above under
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Notice of availability for public comment.
OSTP, on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), announces the availability of a proposed amendment and clarification to the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) for public comment. The proposed amendment addresses the interpretation and Federal use of NCA5 results that depend materially on RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, SRES A2, or analogous high-emissions pathways.
Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time September 9, 2026.
Interested individuals and organizations should submit comments electronically to
USGCRP will not respond to individual submissions. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. This RFI is not accepting applications for financial assistance or financial incentives.
Comments submitted in response to this notice are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). No business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information should be submitted in response to this RFI. Please be aware that comments submitted in response to this RFI, including the submitter's identification (as noted above), may be posted, without change, on OSTP's or another Federal website or otherwise released publicly.
After the public comment period closes, relevant Federal officials and participating agencies will consider the comments as appropriate. The proposed amendment may be revised before any final action.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki, Director, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Office of Science and Technology Policy; email:
The proposed amendment will be available at
NCA5 was released in November 2023. The proposed amendment would clarify the interpretation and Federal use of NCA5 statements, figures, tables, traceable accounts, regional summaries, public summaries, and derivative Federal communications that rely materially on RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, SRES A2, or analogous high-emissions pathways. The proposed amendment would not withdraw NCA5 in its entirety or disturb its compilation of observations, regional information, adaptation considerations, or appropriately described scenario-based analyses.
The proposed amendment would clarify that results dependent on these pathways should not be presented as expected, baseline, business-as-usual, likely, central, or ordinary Federal planning futures unless the same result is independently reproduced under a presently plausible scenario and evaluated against observations. Such results may remain useful as sensitivity analyses, bounding exercises, or stress tests when the applicable scenario, material assumptions, and limitations are clearly disclosed where the projected impact is communicated.
USGCRP invites public comment on the scientific basis for the proposed amendment; NCA5 material that may require clarification; methods for labeling and communicating scenario-dependent results; the use of observational evidence and plausible comparator scenarios; and implications for Federal planning, analysis, and public communications. Commenters are encouraged to provide citations, data, or other supporting material.
On June 26, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities
ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the purpose of clearing CDS contracts for its Clearing Participants.
ICC proposes to amend Section III.A. of the Instrument On-boarding Policy, which discusses the guiding principles that ICC maintains for considering instruments for clearing. These principles are designed to ensure that ICC proceeds in a prudent manner with respect to instrument selection while also providing the best opportunity for Clearing Participants to minimize their risk.
Currently under Section III.A, ICC considers for clearing instruments that among other things are not constituents of currently clearable indices but meet certain other criteria. ICC proposes to amend this guiding principle. Currently, under this guiding principle, ICC considers instruments for clearing (i) with uncleared gross notional open interest among ICC's Clearing Participants, or with an average bilateral weekly volume equal to or greater than the average cleared volume across currently cleared instruments belonging to the same product type over the last twelve months or (ii) with bilateral open interest held by at least three Affiliate Groups of Clearing Participants.
The Proposed Rule Change would introduce a third criterion to this guiding principle. ICC proposes to also consider for clearing instruments that are not constituents of currently clearable indices but that are single name instruments with reference entities with minimum outstanding debt notional of 500 million U.S. Dollars or Euros.
To further emphasize that an instrument considered under this guiding principle needs only to satisfy one of the criteria or sub-bullets specified in the ICC On-boarding Policy to be considered for clearing, ICC proposes to revise the punctuation by replacing periods in the first two criteria with semi-colons and adding “or” before the third criteria. ICC states that instruments subject to the amended guiding principles would continue to be subject to effective controls through existing governance, risk, pricing, and operations reviews, which ultimately determine the instruments that ICC may clear.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC. Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, ICC's rules, among other things, must be “designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and . . . to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible . . . .” Based on a review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
As discussed above, ICC is proposing to add a third criterion for instrument selection so that single name instruments with reference entities having a minimum outstanding debt notional of $500MM or €500MM may be considered for clearing, even if the instrument is not a constituent of a currently clearable index. By expanding the universe of instruments eligible for consideration under the guiding principles, the Proposed Rule Change enhances ICC's ability to offer clearing for a broader range of CDS instruments, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of instruments for which ICC is responsible. Instruments considered for clearing under the amended guiding principles remain subject to ICC's existing governance, risk, pricing, and operations reviews, which serve as effective controls to ensure that only appropriate instruments are admitted to clearing, thereby safeguarding the securities and funds in ICC's custody or control. By potentially allowing
As discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change also would clarify the On-boarding Policy by revising the punctuation by replacing periods in the first two criteria with semi-colons and adding “or” before the third criterion. A clearer On-boarding Policy helps lower the chance that there are any delays or disruptions to the instrument on-boarding process. Given the smoother process, these proposed changes promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
The Proposed Rule Change therefore facilitates the expansion of clearing services in a manner that supports market efficiency and preserves the integrity of ICC's risk management framework. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires ICC to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
The proposed rule change would help provide a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for ICC's clearance of additional instruments. The proposed amendments to the On-boarding Policy advance these objectives by codifying an additional, clearly defined quantitative criterion. As discussed above, the proposed rule change would allow single name instruments to be considered for clearing, even if they are not constituents of a currently clearable index, where their reference entities have a minimum outstanding debt notional threshold of $500MM or €500MM. By memorializing this criterion in written policy, ICC enhances the transparency and clarity of its instrument selection framework, ensuring that the On-boarding Policy is well-founded and enforceable. Furthermore, the proposed structural revisions to the punctuation and organization of the sub-bullets further reinforce the transparent and unambiguous application of the guiding principles, leaving no uncertainty as to how instruments may qualify for clearing consideration under this provision.
The Proposed Rule Change therefore provides a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for ICC to clear additional instruments. Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 18, 2025, the Commission approved IEX's proposal to adopt rules governing the trading of options on the Exchange in a new facility called “IEX Options”;
IEX's risk controls are designed to offer all IEX Options Members protection from entering orders outside of certain size and price parameters, as well as certain standard or Exchange-established parameters based on order type and market conditions. IEX Options will offer three categories of risk controls: Pre-Trade, Activity-Based, and Global Risk Controls.
The Pre-Trade Risk Controls are a set of optional limits, each of which an Options Member may utilize with respect to its trading activity on the Exchange. An order or quote that breaches a Pre-Trade Risk Control is canceled or rejected, as set forth in Rule 22.250(c)(1)(A). The Pre-Trade Risk Controls include controls related to the maximum dollar amount for a single order to be applied one time and the maximum number of contracts that may be included in a single order before it can be traded.
The Activity-Based Risk Controls are a set of optional controls, each of which an Options Member may apply to orders and quotes in an options class, based on specified thresholds measured over the course of a configurable time period (“Interval”).
When acting as a Market Maker, an Options Member is required to select at least one of the Activity-Based Risk Controls.
As provided in Rule 22.250(c)(2)(E), the Exchange will specify by Trading Alert any applicable minimum, maximum, and/or default settings for the Activity-Based Risk Controls, subject to the following: (i) the transaction-based risk limit must be a value between one and 2,000 transactions; (ii) the volume-based risk limit must be a value between one and 500,000 contracts; and (iii) the percentage-based risk limit must be a value between 50 and 200,000 percent.
The third risk control, Global Risk Controls, are pre-established limits on the number of times an Options Member may breach its Activity-Based risk controls per Interval. If an Options Member breaches its Global Risk Control, the Exchange will cancel and block all orders and quotes of the Options Member in all classes of options regardless of which class(es) of options caused the underlying breach of Activity-Based Risk Controls.
IEX Options also offers a Kill Switch, which allows Options Members to either cancel all unexecuted orders and quotes in the IEX Options Book; block the entry of any new order and quote messages and related instructions; or both.
First, IEX proposes to modify its Activity-Based Risk Controls to allow Options Members the option of setting a Priority Customer
• Firm A applies the volume-based risk limit to its orders and quotes in AAPL options contracts for MPID ABCD.
• The risk control applied to MPID ABCD has the following settings: (i) volume-based risk limit = 100 contracts; (ii) Interval = 60,000 milliseconds (1 minute); and (iii) Priority Customer Multiplier = 100%.
• During a one-minute Interval of trading, MPID ABCD executes 80 contracts against Priority Customer orders, followed by executing 30 contracts against a subsequent Professional order.
• The counter applies the Priority Customer Multiplier to the applicable 80 contracts upon execution, and counts them as 80 contracts executed in fewer than 60 seconds. At this time, no breach has occurred. When the execution against the Professional order occurs, the counter then adds those 30 contracts executed to the 80 contracts already counted, which results in a count of 110 contracts executed in fewer than 60 seconds. The Activity-Based Risk Control is breached.
• Firm A applies the volume-based risk limit to its orders and quotes in AAPL options contracts for MPID ABCD.
• The risk control applied to MPID ABCD has the following settings: (i) volume-based risk limit = 100 contracts; (ii) Interval = 60,000 milliseconds (1 minute); and (iii) Priority Customer Multiplier = 50%.
• During a one-minute Interval of trading, MPID ABCD executes 80 contracts against Priority Customer orders, followed by executing 30 contracts against a subsequent Professional order.
• The counter applies the Priority Customer Multiplier to the applicable 80 contracts upon execution, and counts them as 40 contracts executed in fewer than 60 seconds. At this time, no breach has occurred. When the execution against the Professional order occurs, the counter then adds those 30 contracts executed to the 40 contracts already counted, which results in a count of 70 contracts executed in fewer than 60 seconds. The Activity-Based Risk Control is not breached.
The Exchange understands that market participants generally view executions against orders submitted by Priority Customers
Several other options exchanges have recently begun offering their members the ability to modify the weight applied by activity-based risk control counters based on the capacity code of the counterparty to the transaction.
Second, IEX proposes to modify IEX Rule 22.250(b)(1) to specify that all risk controls may be set and adjusted during the trading day as well as before the beginning of the trading day. IEX makes this proposal based on informal feedback from Options Members who indicated that they would like to be able to modify their risk control settings intraday. Additionally, IEX notes that other exchanges offer their members the ability to change risk control settings during the trading day.
Third, IEX proposes to modify Rule 22.250(c)(2)(C) to specify that when an Options Member's Activity-Based Risk Control has been breached, the Exchange will “cancel and block”
Fourth, IEX proposes to amend Rule 22.250(d) to provide a more efficient alternative process for Options Members to resume trading following a Global Risk Control breach. Rule 22.250(d) currently requires that an Options Member make “nonautomated contact with the Exchange” to be reinstated following a breach of the Global Risk Controls. Several firms that intend to become Options Members have informed IEX that they have the ability to manage the reinstatement of trading following a Global Risk Control breach via automated message, and they prefer that implementation.
Fifth, IEX proposes to add new subparagraph (f) to Rule 22.250 to incorporate language set forth in IEX's Commission-approved proposal to adopt rules governing the trading of options on the Exchange.
Sixth, IEX proposes to modify the MPID level at which Kill Switch actions may be set by an Options Member under Rule 22.250(e). As proposed, Options Members will only be able to set a Kill Switch at the MPID level, not the MPID Group level. IEX understands that Options Members want to be more targeted when using a Kill Switch, and thus would prefer to use a Kill Switch at the MPID level. For this reason, the Exchange proposes to allow the Kill Switch to be applied MPID by MPID, instead of by MPID Group. Additionally, IEX notes that other exchanges, such as CBOE and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“C2”), offer their members kill switches at the EFID (their equivalent of MPID) level, but not at the EFID group level.
Finally, IEX proposes to make the following conforming edits to Rules 22.250 and 22.260:
• Modify Rule 22.250(c)(2)(B) in two ways.
○ First, append to first sentence in the subparagraph the words “subject to any adjustments resulting from the Priority Customer Multiplier set forth in subparagraph (c)(2)(B)(i) of this rule.”
○ Second, in the second sentence in the subparagraph, insert “or quotes” after “may opt to exclude any orders.” IEX proposes to add this language to reflect a recent rule change it made to allow Market Makers to submit IOC quotes,
• Add a new subparagraph (i) to Rule 22.250(c)(2)(B) that reads in full:
○ Priority Customer Multiplier. An Options Member may opt to specify a percentage (between 0% and 100%) of executions against Priority Customer orders to count toward the Options Member's Activity-Based Risk Controls.
• Modify Rule 22.250(c)(2)(C) to remove the references to the “notification only” and “block only” options for the automated breach actions. As proposed, this rule will now read: “Cancel and Block. When an Options Member's Activity-Based Risk Control has been breached, the Exchange will reject new order and quote messages and related instructions, and will cancel all unexecuted orders and quotes in the IEX Options Book for that Options Member in that particular class.”
• Update references to the “Cancel and Block” automated breach action from 22.250(c)(2)(C)(iii) to refer to 22.250(c)(2)(C). These changes are in Rule 22.250(c)(3)(A), Rule 22.260(d)(3)(E), and Rule 22.260(f).
• Update Rule 22.250(d) to remove the words “either a `Block Only' or” and “(other than instructions to cancel one or more orders or quotes in full)” in the first sentence, which will now read in full:
○ Reinstatement of Options Member After Automated Breach Action. If a “Cancel and Block” Automated Breach Action has been triggered, the Exchange will not reinstate the Options Member's ability to enter orders and quotes and related instructions on the Exchange without the consent of the Options Member, which may be provided via automated contact if it was a breach of an Activity-Based Risk Control or a Global Risk Control.
• Update Rule 22.250(d) to delete the last sentence about reinstatement following a Global Risk Control breach via “nonautomated contact with the Exchange” and add “or Global Risk Control” to the end of the preceding sentence.
• Update Rule 22.250(e) to remove the reference to setting Kill Switch actions at the MPID Group level.
• Introduce new subparagraph (f) to Rule 22.250 to clarify the manner in which the System will handle executable interest received prior to the time a risk control has been breached. Specifically, IEX proposes to insert the following text as new Rule 22.250(f):
○ With respect to the Activity-Based and Global Risk Controls (as well as Kill Switch Actions), any marketable interest that is executable against an order or quote that is received prior to the time the applicable threshold is triggered and processed by the System will be automatically executed up to the size of the resting order or quote, regardless of whether the execution would cause the Options Member to exceed its pre-set risk threshold(s).
• Fix a typo in Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 22.250, so it refers to the price controls under paragraph (a)(1)(A)(ii).
• Fix typos in Rules 22.260(d)(3)(E) and 22.260(f), so they are both titled “Automated Breach Action for Market Makers,” not “Automated Breach Action for Maker Makers.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed enhancements to the risk parameters available to Options Members are designed to promote effective risk management processes that can be appropriately tailored to the risks of different types of trading activity. With respect to the change to allow Options Members to give less weight to executions against Priority Customers in their Activity-Based Risk Control trade counters, the Exchange believes that this change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it would enable Options Members to tailor trade counters in a manner consistent with the Options Member's risk tolerance and business model rather than forcing a “one size fits all” approach. As a consequence, the Exchange believes that this change could result in less canceling and blocking of orders and quotes, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants.
As described in the Purpose section, the Exchange also believes that the other proposed changes are consistent with the purposes of the Act because allowing risk controls to be adjusted during the day, offering only one automated breach action (Cancel and Block), allowing Options Members to submit an automated message to resume submitting orders and quotes following a Cancel and Block automated breach action, and allowing the Kill Switch to be set at the MPID level but not the MPID Group level, are all refinements that are designed to help Options Members manage and control their risk profile. Thus, the Exchange believes that all of these proposed modifications to its risk controls will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because they provide appropriate functionality for Options Members to manage risk.
Moreover, as described in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes these proposed, narrowly tailored enhancements to its risk controls are not designed to permit unfair discrimination among Options Members as they would apply equally to all Options Members.
Further, IEX believes adding language to Rule 22.250(f) regarding execution of marketable orders or quotes that are received prior to the time an Activity-Based Risk Control, Global Risk Control, or Kill Switch Action is triggered and processed by the System is consistent with the Act. This language merely incorporates into IEX rules language that was specifically set forth in IEX's Commission-approved proposal to adopt rules governing the trading of options on the Exchange as discussed in the Purpose section.
Finally, as discussed in the Purpose section, each of these proposed changes is comparable to functionality available on other options exchanges, but more narrowly tailored with respect to the Priority Customer change, as described in the Purpose section, and that have already been considered by the Commission.
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 that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent the proposed changes enhance the competitiveness of IEX Options, competing exchanges have and can continue to adopt comparable risk control functionality (as described in the Purpose section), subject to the Commission's rule filing process.
The Exchange also does not believe that 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. All Options Members will be eligible to apply any of the new enhancements to IEX's risk controls proposed in this filing. Thus, each Options Member would be able to choose the settings for its risk controls best suited to its risk profile, with the goal of better managing their risk while trading on IEX Options. The Exchange believes that these proposed changes to its risk controls will enable Options Members to strengthen their risk management capabilities, which, in turn, may enhance the integrity of trading on the options market and help to assure the stability of the financial system.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 4, Rule 4759(a) regarding the public disclosure of sources of data that the Exchange uses for purposes set forth in that subparagraph to provide that, during the Night Session,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On April 15, 2026, the SEC approved a proposal that the Exchange submitted to trade NMS stocks and ETPs on a 23/
The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 4, Rule 4759(a), which describes the quotation data consumed by the Nasdaq System from proprietary and network processor feeds for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for the regulatory compliance processes related to those functions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that subject to Exchange Rule Equity 1, Section 1(a)(19), during the Night Session, the Exchange will use CQS/UQDF as the source of quotation data for purposes of Rule 4759(a).
Exchange Rule 4759(a) currently provides that the Nasdaq System consumes quotation data from the proprietary and network processor feeds listed in the rule for order handling, routing, execution, and related regulatory compliance processes. The rule further provides that the Primary Source of data is used unless it is delayed by a configurable amount compared to the Secondary Source of data, that the Exchange will revert to the Primary Source of data once the delay has been resolved, and that the configurable amount described in the rule will be made available to members via Equity Trader Alert.
The Exchange proposes to amend the introductory sentence of Exchange Rule 4759(a) to clarify that, during the Night Session, and subject to Exchange Rule Equity 1, Section 1(a)(19), the Exchange will use CQS/UQDF as the sole source of quotation data for purposes of Exchange Rule 4759(a). The proposed change is intended to provide transparent notice in the Exchange's rules regarding the source of quotation data that the Exchange will use during the Night Session for the functions identified in subparagraph (a) of Exchange Rule 4759.
The Exchange believes that using CQS/UQDF as the source of quotation data during the Night Session is appropriate because the Night Session presents operational considerations that are distinct from those associated with the Exchange's existing trading hours. In particular, accommodating market data feeds for the extended hours associated with the Night Session requires changes to the timestamps used by the Exchange's market data feed handlers—the Exchange systems responsible for receiving and processing market data feeds. Rather than introduce those timestamp-related changes across the proprietary feed handlers that serve as the primary sources of quotation data for the Exchange's existing Day Session and for other Nasdaq-affiliated markets and systems, the Exchange proposes to make the necessary Night Session-related changes only with respect to CQS/UQDF. This approach will provide the Exchange with a reliable consolidated source of quotation data for the Night Session while reducing unnecessary operational risk to the proprietary feeds and related systems used outside of the Night Session. The proposal does not otherwise amend the list of market centers or the primary and secondary source designations set forth in Exchange Rule 4759(a), and it does not change the Exchange's use of SIP trade and administrative data under Exchange Rule 4759(b).
Accordingly, the proposed distinction for the Night Session is limited and operationally tailored. Outside of the Night Session, the Exchange will continue to use the proprietary and network processor feeds identified in Exchange Rule 4759(a), including the primary and secondary source framework set forth in that rule. During the Night Session, and subject to Exchange Rule Equity 1, Section 1(a)(19), however, the Exchange will used CQS/UQDF as the sole source of quotation data for the purposes of Exchange Rule 4759(a) because that approach allows the Exchange to support the extended hours of the Night Session without making unnecessary changes to proprietary data feed handlers that support other trading sessions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is designed to promote transparency by specifying in Exchange Rule 4759(a) the source of quotation data that the Exchange will use during the Night Session for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance processes related to those functions. The Exchange believes that identifying CQS/UQDF as the applicable quotation data source during the Night Session will provide members and other market participants with clear notice of the data source that will be used during that trading session.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it updates the rule text to reflect how the Exchange will operate during the Night Session while preserving the existing operation of
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change identifies the source of quotation data that the Exchange will use during the Night Session for the purposes set forth in Exchange Rule 4759(a). The proposal does not impose any new requirements on members and will apply uniformly to all members that participate in the Night Session. In addition, the proposed use of CQS/UQDF during the Night Session reflects an operationally tailored approach to supporting the extended operating hours of that session while avoiding unnecessary changes to proprietary feed handlers used outside of the Night Session. It does not affect the terms on which members may access or compete on the Exchange.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on intermarket competition because it merely specifies the quotation data source the Exchange will use during the Night Session and does not restrict the ability of other exchanges or market participants to compete.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated August 19, 2026. Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
Issued on August 19, 2026.
Shaquille Lewis, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21793B and for economic injury is 217940.
The states which received an SBA Administrative declaration are Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4922-DR), dated June 30, 2026.
Issued on August 20, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Mississippi, dated June 30, 2026, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Women Impressionists and the Land” at the Saint Louis Art Museum, St. Louis, Missouri; the Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of “FAST Act” Dispute Resolution Procedures, as described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, FAST Act Dispute Resolution Procedures.” Written comments for the
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Notice and Request for Comments.
Surface Transportation Board.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of Arbitration “Opt-in” Notices, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Arbitration `Opt-In' Notices.” Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted via
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Notice and request for comments.
Surface Transportation Board.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of system diagram maps, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, System Diagram Maps.” Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted via
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the extension (without change) of the collections required by statute for rail or water carrier equipment liens (recordations), water carrier tariffs, and rail agricultural contract summaries, as described in more detail below.
Comments on these information collections should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Recordations (Rail and Water Carrier Liens), Water Carrier Tariffs, and Agricultural Contract Summaries.” Written comments for the proposed information collections should be submitted via
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of Rail Depreciation Studies, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, Rail Depreciation Studies.” Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted via
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an
Information from certain schedules contained in these reports is available at the Board's website at
Notice and request for comments.
Surface Transportation Board.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of the Report of Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue, as described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by September 24, 2026.
Written comments should be identified as “Paperwork Reduction Act Comments, Surface Transportation Board, Report of Fuel Cost, Consumption, and Surcharge Revenue.” Written comments for the proposed information collection should be submitted via
Please also direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
The Board previously published a notice about this collection in the
Comments are requested concerning: (1) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Section 3507(b) of the PRA requires, concurrent with an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 30-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about FAA's intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the FAA Acquisition Management System (FAAAMS) and information collected in response to notices regarding FAA acquisitions. The information to be collected is necessary to solicit, award, and administer contracts for supplies, equipment, services, facilities, and real property to fulfill FAA's mission.
Written comments should be submitted by October 26, 2026.
Please send written comments:
David L. Williams by email at:
Notice; Request for information (RFI).
Under the leadership of President Trump and at the direction of Secretary Duffy and Administrator Bedford, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are pursuing opportunities to ensure the United States global dominance in the commercial space transportation industry. The FAA is issuing this RFI to solicit public and industry input on two key transportation-related elements of President Trump's recently published 2026 National Space Transportation Policy (NSTP): siting a new spaceport and the development and use of priority airspace for critical space launch corridors.
Written comments, including all supporting information and documents, are requested on or before October 26, 2026.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit responses to the questions posed in this RFI, along with supporting information, regarding the 2026 NSTP, to docket number FAA-2026-9736 using any of the following methods:
•
•
James Hatt, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 267-4156. Email:
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit information to support the Department's analysis in expanding opportunities for commercial space transportation and support the 2026 NSTP objectives.
In 2025, the United States was responsible for 217 of the 329 launches worldwide. This rapid increase cemented the United States as the premier launch country. Looking forward, this ever-increasing launch rate is expected to reach 10,000 FAA-licensed launches and reentries a year by 2035, driving the cadence from a few launches a week to several launches and reentries a day. As of today, over half of U.S. launches originated from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Including Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, these three Federal sites account for 83 percent of U.S. launches.
On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14369,
The 2026 NSTP also tasks the Department to “designate priority airspace for critical space launch corridors.” The Department seeks input from the space and aviation industries and other interested stakeholders. Specifically, the Department is interested in considerations for developing priority airspace for critical space launch corridors, the ideal requisites for priority airspace, and concepts for differentiating standard airspace used for commercial space activities from priority airspace.
This RFI is an invitation to submit information in response to questions on the topics posed below in Section 4. Responses should be as detailed as possible to facilitate a comprehensive review.
The United States is the unquestioned leader in space launch and reentry. Robust and varied commercial, civil, and national security space launch activities form the backbone of U.S. space-based power. Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Kennedy Space Center, and Vandenberg Space Force Base provide unprecedented access to space. Federal ranges are strained to support both governmental and commercial space launches, however. Even with enhanced efficiency at Federal launch and reentry sites, the United States may find availability of launch and reentry sites becoming a bottleneck to achieving the goals of E.O. 14369 and the 2026 NSTP. While enhanced efficiency at Federal launch sites will support the short-term increase in launch cadence and demand, with surges in military, commercial, and civil space activities, the United States must prepare for the rapid expansion of launch cadence by supporting increased spaceport capacity, additional launch sites, and support infrastructure to ensure continuous dominance in commercial space.
The fundamental requirements that drove site selection for the Eastern and Western Test Ranges in the 1950s remain unchanged. Geography allowing launch and reentry over open water, available infrastructure to support launch logistics (
The Department oversees FAA-licensed commercial spaceports and private single-use launch sites. A viable spaceport involves several tradeoffs. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation developed a brief
A critical aspect of spaceport development will be funding. Secretary Duffy recently established the National Infrastructure Development Office (NIDO) in the Department to expand and encourage use of public-private partnerships in infrastructure development. Public-private partnerships could be a valuable and innovative tool for structuring spaceport development in particular. This RFI solicits information on funding mechanisms and the potential utility of public-private partnerships in spaceport development.
In addition, the 2026 NSTP directs the Department to “designate priority airspace for critical space launch corridors.” Currently, U.S. launch operators work with the FAA Air Traffic Organization to establish Aircraft Hazard Areas (AHAs) for space launches to protect aircraft from space objects and falling debris. Because the same spaceports support the majority of U.S. space launches, the same or similar AHAs for safety are repeatedly used. FAA does not currently use the term `space launch corridor.' The questions below are intended to explore the relationship and assumptions related to the current AHAs and the new critical space launch corridor concept. The concept of airspace corridors, in general, is not new, and airspace corridors for aviation users may vary in definition and use from space launch corridors. For example, airspace corridors for aviation activities may look and operate differently from a potential space launch corridor, as the foundations for space launch safety account for collision and debris. In contrast, most aviation activities need only account for collision. From a space operator's perspective, request time and availability are important factors enabling rapid launch cadence. From an aviation perspective, advance notification of time, size, and duration of AHAs are integral to maintaining both aviation safety and airspace efficiency.
The Department may use information obtained through this request to assist in, inform, and research potential locations for viable spaceport sites. The Department will also accept ideas for increasing launch cadence at existing U.S. commercial spaceport sites.
The Department requests that information be provided in a written statement. The Department may request additional information or presentations from responders depending upon the details of the responder's submission. Given the short timeframe for the Department's identification and characterization of potential sites, responders should assume that their written response is the best opportunity to provide input and not hold out for an in-person meeting with the Department.
Interested members of the public, including aerospace industry stakeholders, are requested to submit information on the following:
• Name, address, and affiliation (company if appropriate);
• URL of company website (if applicable); and
• Point of contact, including telephone number and email address.
1.
• What geographic aspects matter most: proximity to the equator for prograde space launches, proximity to or separation from densely populated regions, or other factors?
• What logistical considerations should be evaluated, including ease of development and access, as well as impediments to be avoided?
• What unique considerations would there be with an island spaceport versus a site on the continental United States?
• What international equities should be considered with siting (
• What should the primary safety considerations be for siting of any new spaceport, given the current public safety criteria of 1 × 10
2.
• What Federal actions could be taken to increase orbital launches from existing commercial spaceports?
• Why haven't these underutilized spaceports developed into operational spaceports? Can the development of existing commercial spaceports be renewed?
3.
• Spaceport Shiloh, Florida. Space Florida proposed the construction and operation of the Shiloh Launch Complex on approximately 150 acres of undeveloped Federal land.
• Camden Spaceport, Georgia. Initially, a site considered by NASA for the Apollo program, planning progressed on Camden Spaceport until local stakeholders pushed back in 2022, ending site development. The County's current site license runs through December 2026.
• Puerto Rico Spaceport. Initially conceptualized in the 2012-2016 timeframe. Spaceport Puerto Rico was considered for light and medium launch vehicles.
• Space launch rigs. Space launch from converted oil rigs or custom-developed launch platforms.
• Where might a new U.S. vertical spaceport site be developed? Considering the factors identified in the Spaceport Licensing Primer and FAA regulations on launch sites in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 420, what changes might the Department make to encourage, facilitate, and promote development of a new spaceport site?
• Referring to the Spaceport Licensing Primer, what can the Department do to address the four challenging areas in spaceport development: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) co-location with an airport, (3) environmental issues, and (4) airspace integration?
• Are there locations where the necessary infrastructure already exists for establishing a spaceport? For example, transport links such as wide-load highways or deep-water ports.
• What are the primary costs associated with developing a new spaceport?
• What strategies and technologies could be utilized to expedite construction?
• What are the supply chain constraints for construction, and how could they be addressed?
• What energy constraints exist, and how could they be addressed?
• What funding constraints exist, and how could they be addressed, to include alternative financing structures? How could public-private partnerships best be leveraged to finance spaceport development?
5.
• How can the implementation of space launch corridors limit adverse impacts to airspace efficiency and the continued growth of the air transportation industry?
• What benefits to either or both industries would be granted when utilizing critical space launch corridors?
• What adjustments to operational and coordination timelines might be made when utilizing critical space launch corridors?
• Assuming standard existing procedures apply for activities that do not use critical space launch corridors, what activities would qualify for activation of the critical space launch corridors?
• How would the payload characterization (commercial, civil, or national security) impact the development or use of critical space launch corridors?
• What spaceports would most benefit from critical space launch corridors: all spaceports, major use spaceports, or only Federal spaceports?
• What governance structures would enhance the use of critical launch corridors, to include fees, operational restrictions, or other oversight methodologies?
• What limitations or emergency measures would need to be established to ensure public safety during commercial space activities and continued aviation safety for the flying public?
• What environmental concerns should be considered in determining where to locate, and when to activate, critical space launch corridors?
• How would the identification of a corridor as a “critical space launch corridor,” which is not a current term in AHAs, increase awareness, streamline timing requirements, and enable greater launch cadence?
6. What questions are we not asking that are relevant to this effort? Please identify those questions and provide responses.
See also the
The Department may request clarification of responses directly related to this RFI through direct contact with respondents. Respondents must identify and clearly mark any proprietary information contained in their submissions and must be prepared to provide justification for confidential treatment to the Department of such designations if requested. This proprietary information will be treated confidentially by the Department; however, nothing alters the Department's obligations under existing law, including any duties owed by the Department under the Freedom of Information Act. The Department may need the Respondent's justification of the proprietary designation to support withholding the documents or information from public disclosure upon request.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872.” This information collection (IC) is voluntary and may be utilized by certified medical examiners (MEs) responsible for issuing Medical Examiner's Certificates (MEC), Form MCSA-5876, to individuals diagnosed with non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus who operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). MEs choosing to use this IC will do so in an effort to communicate with treating healthcare providers who manage the diabetes care of individuals diagnosed with non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus who operate CMVs. The information obtained by MEs will assist them in determining if an individual diagnosed with non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus meets FMCSA's physical qualification standards.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before October 26, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-1783 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-1783), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
The primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving CMVs (large trucks and buses). The Secretary of Transportation has delegated responsibility to FMCSA under 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502 to prescribe regulations that ensure CMVs are operated safely. As part of this mission, the Agency's Medical Programs Division works to ensure that individuals who operate CMVs engaged in interstate commerce are physically qualified and able to safely perform their work. CMVs characteristically pose a threat to highway safety if not operated properly by qualified individuals. CMVs are longer, heavier, and more difficult to maneuver than automobiles. Not only does it take a skilled driver to operate them safely, but it also takes a physically and mentally fit driver to do so as well. Information used to determine and certify driver medical fitness helps to promote and maintain safety on our nation's
The FMCSRs in § 391.41(b)(1) through (13) generally include the physical qualification standards required for the medical certification of individuals who operate a CMV in interstate commerce. The physical qualification standards in § 391.46 address the physical qualification requirements for medical certification of individuals who are diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and are treated with insulin. However, the FMCSRs do not specifically address individuals who are diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and are treated with non-insulin therapy. The type of diabetes mellitus that is not treated with insulin (commonly known as Type 2 diabetes) is recognized as a health concern for the general public. Non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus that is not properly managed and controlled may result in diabetes complications, target organ damage, and in the individual's physical condition being inadequate to enable the driver to operate a CMV safely. The physical qualification standards in the FMCSRs broadly address some of the conditions and symptoms that may be attributable to complications from non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Examples include the loss of limb and limb impairment standard (§ 391.41(b)(1) and (2)), the cardiovascular standard (§ 391.41(b)(4)), the rheumatic, arthritic, orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular, or vascular standard (§ 391.41(b)(7)), and the loss of consciousness standard (§ 391.41(b)(8)). In performing a thorough assessment and evaluation of an individual diagnosed with non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, the ME may need to consult with the individual's treating healthcare provider who manages the individual's diabetes. The ME may find this helpful in determining whether the individual has any medical conditions or symptoms, such as frequent episodes of severe hypoglycemia, that may prevent the individual from meeting the physical qualification standards and receiving an MEC. This IC would assist the ME in collecting the appropriate information from the treating healthcare provider via the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, in a standardized manner and would assist the ME in making an informed and sound physical qualification determination.
In May 2021, FMCSA's Medical Review Board (MRB) deliberated on the topic and contents of the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872 (Task 21-2). FMCSA directed the MRB to review and comment on whether the information on the proposed Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, provides sufficient information concerning the treatment, management, and control of an individual's non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus condition to assist a ME in making an appropriate physical qualification determination. The Agency also requested that the MRB identify any areas of ambiguity as well as additional information that FMCSA should include on the form. Based on the review of the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, the MRB made some recommendations to improve the clarity and quality of information on the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872 that is provided from the individual's treating healthcare provider to the ME.
There is no required collection frequency for the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, because the use of this IC is voluntary and at the discretion of the ME. The ME may use the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, to facilitate communication with the treating healthcare provider responsible for managing the individual's non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus diabetes care, and to assist the ME in determining if the individual meets the physical qualification standards in § 391.41(b)(1) through (13).
The Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, is available as a fillable pdf and may be downloaded from the FMCSA website. Treating healthcare providers can fax or scan and email the report to the ME. Consistent with OMB's commitment to minimizing respondents' recordkeeping and paperwork burdens and the increased use of secure electronic modes of communication, the Agency anticipates that approximately 50 percent of the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Forms, MCSA-5872, will be transmitted electronically.
The information collected on the Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, will be used by the ME who requests completion of the form and will not be available to the public. The Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus Assessment Form, MCSA-5872, will become a part of the individual's physical qualification examination records that are maintained and retained by the ME for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the examination.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. This notice invites comments on the renewal of an approved information collection titled “Emergency Exemptions Under 49 CFR 390.25,” (OMB Control No. 2126-007) which is currently due to expire on January 31, 2027.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before October 26, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2026-2476 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Kathryn Sinniger, Regulatory Law Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-2476), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Section 390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), automatically creates a 14-day exemption from the hours of service regulations, found in 49 CFR 395.3 and 395.5, when a Governor, or FMCSA, issues a declaration of an
This ICR supports the DOT strategic goal of safety and organizational excellence by ensuring that the exemptions from the regulations are limited to those that are necessary to support immediate direct assistance in the wake of an emergency declaration.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental action taken for the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project. The purpose of this notice is to advise the public of the time limit to file any claims that may challenge these decisions and other Federal permits, licenses, and approvals for the Project.
A claim seeking judicial review of Federal agency actions for the listed rail transportation project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 24, 2028. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than two years for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies.
For further information related to this notice, please contact Kathryn Johnson, Attorney Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel by email:
Notice is given that FRA has taken final agency action by issuing certain approvals for the railroad project listed below. The actions on the project, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), available at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed project as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375); Section 4(f) requirements (23 U.S.C. 138, 49 U.S.C. 303); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451), and relevant Executive Orders. This notice does not, however, alter or extend a shorter limitation period that may exist for challenges of project decisions covered by this notice. The project that is the subject of this notice follows:
In the 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress provided IDOT funding to support preliminary engineering for the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project, among other improvements on the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. At this time, no federal funding has been awarded for final design or construction of the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project.
In July 2025, FRA and IDOT released an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project to evaluate potential impacts to the human and natural environment, in accordance with NEPA. FRA was the lead Federal agency for the NEPA process. FRA released the EA for public review and comment July 9, 2025 through August 15, 2025. IDOT hosted an open house/public hearing on August 7, 2025. FRA considered all comments before issuing a FONSI.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meetings.
The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announces the next public meeting of the Beautifying Transportation Infrastructure Council (Council) on September 30, 2026. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the virtual meeting, which will be open to the public. The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary of Transportation on enhancing the aesthetic value of our Nation's transportation systems.
The meeting will be held on September 30, 2026, beginning at 10:00 p.m. (EST) and ending at 4:00 p.m. (EST). The exact start and end times are subject to change; please monitor
The Council will meet virtually. The public may join the meeting virtually, with information available on
The Council's Designated Federal Officer, Julianne Schwarzer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary,
The U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) established the Council as a Federal Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10) to advise the Secretary on enhancing the aesthetic value of our Nation's transportation systems. The Council provides recommendations on policies, designs, and funding priorities that beautify transportation infrastructure, including highways, bridges, and transit hubs, while maintaining safety and efficiency.
At the meeting, the proposed agenda will cover the Call to Order, Official Statement of the Designated Federal Officer, Meeting Logistics, Opening Remarks, Committee Business, and Review of Next Steps. The agenda is subject to change.
The meeting will be open to the public through a virtual meeting. Registration for the meeting can be found here:
All advance submissions will be reviewed by the Designated Federal Officer. If approved, advance submissions shall be circulated to the Council members for review prior to the meeting. All advance submissions will become part of the official record of the meeting.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on August 7, 2026. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On August 7, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BLUWAVES PROPERTIES LIMITED, Virgin Islands, British; Organization Established Date 05 Mar 2021; Registration Number 2056404 (Virgin Islands, British) [VENEZUELA-EO13850].
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of Executive Order 13850 of November 1, 2018, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela,” 83 FR 55243, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 881, as amended by Executive Order 13857 of January 25, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Venezuela,” 84 FR 509, 3 CFR 2019 Comp., p. 251 (E.O. 13850) for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. The vessels placed on the SDN List have been identified as property in which a blocked person has an interest.
This action was issued on August 20, 2026. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On August 20, 2026, OFAC determined that one or more persons and vessels identified below meet one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the persons identified below.
OFAC further determined that one or more persons and vessels identified below meet one or more of the criteria for sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended).
As a result, the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons and vessels are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas, Ecuador; DOB 06 Mar 1987; POB Manta, Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; Cedula No. 1312277484 (Ecuador) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
2. MARTINEZ MENDOZA, Milton Edixson, Manabi, Ecuador; DOB 31 Aug 1971; POB Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; National ID No. 1307290450 (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LOS LOBOS DRUG TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION; Linked To: LOS CHONEROS).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, Los Choneros and Los Lobos, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Los Choneros and Los Lobos, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis, Manabi, Ecuador; DOB 01 Jul 1980; POB Manta, Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; Cedula No. 1309153755 (Ecuador) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
4. MERO ARCENTALES, Roberth Alfonso, Manabi, Ecuador; DOB 01 Dec 1970; POB Manta, Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; Cedula No. 1306376458 (Ecuador) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
5. MERO BERMELLO, Byron Aladino, Manabi, Ecuador; DOB 15 Jul 1983; POB Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; Cedula No. 1310415516 (Ecuador) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
6. MERO FRANCO, Julio Javier (a.k.a. “Javico”), Ecuador; DOB 09 Aug 1991; POB Manta, Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: LOS CHONEROS).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having provided, or attempted to provide, financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, Los Choneros, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Los Choneros, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. MERO MERO, Alfonso, Ecuador; DOB 27 May 1945; POB Montecristi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; Identification Number 1300092499 (Ecuador) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
8. VERZ LAZ, Jhonny Francisco (a.k.a. “Baron Poncho”), Ecuador; DOB 09 Aug 1996; POB Manta, Manabi, Ecuador; nationality Ecuador; Gender Male; National ID No. 1308357084 (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO FRANCO, Julio Javier).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Julio Javier Mero Franco, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Julio Javier Mero Franco, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
1. ALHO FISH, S.A., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 06 Nov 2009; Organization Type: Marine Fishing; RUC #1391767943001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
2. ARCASDENOE, S.A. (a.k.a. EXPORTADORA Y EMPACADORA ARCASDENOE, S.A.), Manabi, Ecuador; website
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Alfonso Mero Mero and Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales, sanctioned persons pursuant to E.O. 14059.
3. GLOBALDISTRIAL, S.A.S., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 23 Apr 2024; Organization Type: Wholesale of construction materials, hardware, plumbing and heating equipment and supplies; RUC #1391936314001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
4. JAH-HMH, S.A.S., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 24 Oct 2024; Organization Type: Marine Fishing; RUC #1391937025001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
5. NEGOCIOS JIMAR, S.A.S., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 01 Jun 2022; Organization Type: Marine Fishing; RUC #1391932622001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
6. PROYECTOS NEYZOA, S.A.S., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 06 Apr 2022; Organization Type: Marine Fishing; RUC # 1391932427001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
7. SOISAMAR, S.A.S., Manabi, Ecuador; Organization Established Date 31 Mar 2021; Organization Type: Marine Fishing; RUC # 1391924267001 (Ecuador) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Designated pursuant to section 1(b)(iii) of E.O. 14059 for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a sanctioned person pursuant to E.O. 14059.
1. ARCA DE NOE III (HC4100) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 1997; MMSI 735058087; Registration Number P-04-00583 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis; Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Roberth Alfonso).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales and Roberth Alfonso Mero Arcentales, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, have an interest.
2. ARCA DE NOE III JR (a.k.a. “ARCA JR. 3”) (HC6372) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2019; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8456035; MMSI 735059969; Registration Number P-04-01069 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
3. ARCA DE NOE IV (HC4361) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2000; MMSI 735058088; Registration Number P-04-00679 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO MERO, Alfonso).
Identified as property in which Alfonso Mero Mero, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
4. ARCA DE NOE V (HC4733) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2005; MMSI 735058089; Registration Number P-04-00777 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
5. CONQUISTA (HC4941) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 1985; MMSI 735058723; Registration Number P-06-05063 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
6. COSTA MARLIN (HC4338) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2000; MMSI 735057861; Registration Number P-04-01049 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Identified as property in which Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
7. REY DE ARCA (HC4440) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2009; MMSI 735058725; Registration Number P-04-00850 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO MERO, Alfonso).
Identified as property in which Alfonso Mero Mero, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
8. SIEMPRE MI ARCA (HC5299) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2011; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8555518; MMSI 735058993; Registration Number P-04-00905 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
9. SOLO ES MEJOR (HC6172) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; Vessel Year of Build 2012; MMSI 735059710; Registration Number P-04-00926 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Identified as property in which Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, has an interest.
10. TODOS VUELVEN (a.k.a. “ARCA DE NOE I”; a.k.a. “MI NARCISA DE JESUS”) (HC4983) Fishing Vessel Ecuador flag; MMSI 735058319; Registration Number P-04-00819 (Ecuador) (vessel) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059] (Linked To: MERO ARCENTALES, Edwar Alexis; Linked To: ALARCON HOLGUIN, Jimmy Leonidas).
Identified as property in which Edwar Alexis Mero Arcentales and Jimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 14059, have an interest.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on August 20, 2026. See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On August 20, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. AKYUZ, Vasfi, 14112 Sokak Door: 47, Seyhan Daghkioghlu Mah., Adana, Turkey; DOB 01 Aug 1969; POB Mardin, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 29570232550 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041, 3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p. 356 (E.O. 13224, as amended), for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
2. DEDE, Onder, Gamze Sokak 15 3, Avcilar, Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 10 Aug 1972; POB Cankiri, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 17380793996 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
3. KACMAZ, Halil Ibrahim (a.k.a. KACHMAZ, Halil), Turkey; DOB 02 Mar 1971; POB Mardin, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 62719131246 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
4. KARASALIH, Feyyad, United Arab Emirates; Turkey; DOB 27 May 2002; POB Hatay, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Passport U25359263 (Turkey) expires 29 Nov 2031; National ID No. 47935114464 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
5. MOUSAFAR, Masoud, Turkey; DOB 23 Sep 1980; nationality Iran; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Passport K34425246 (Iran) expires 01 Aug 2020 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
6. YILMAZ, Yunus Alper, Turkey; United Arab Emirates; DOB 1982; POB Mersin, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886 (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
7. ACUR, Mehmet (a.k.a. AJUR, Mehmet), Kangal Sokak 6 4, Fatih Yavuz Sultan Selim Mah., Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 19 Aug 1982; POB Midyat, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Passport U28821454 (Turkey) expires 29 May 2033; National ID No. 31250176566 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
8. AKYUZ, Mehmet, Oksuzler Sokak 10 2, Fatih Iskenderpasha Mah., Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 01 Jan 1983; POB Midyat, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Passport U36466313 (Turkey) expires 25 Jun 2034; National ID No. 29537233644 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
9. AYAZ, Emrah, Genclik Sokak 5 2, Bahchelievler Fevzichakmak Mah., Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 02 Oct 1984; POB Adana, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; National ID No. 54121688050 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
10. SAVCI, Gulay Kaya (a.k.a. SAVJI, Gulay Kaya), Merkez Mah. Deste Sokak
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Hizballah, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
1. HIZBALLAH (a.k.a. ANSAR ALLAH; a.k.a. EXTERNAL SECURITY ORGANIZATION OF HEZBOLLAH; a.k.a. FOLLOWERS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMED; a.k.a. HIZBALLAH ESO; a.k.a. HIZBALLAH INTERNATIONAL; a.k.a. ISLAMIC JIHAD; a.k.a. ISLAMIC JIHAD FOR THE LIBERATION OF PALESTINE; a.k.a. ISLAMIC JIHAD ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. LEBANESE HEZBOLLAH; a.k.a. LEBANESE HIZBALLAH; a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF RIGHT AGAINST WRONG; a.k.a. ORGANIZATION OF THE OPPRESSED ON EARTH; a.k.a. PARTY OF GOD; a.k.a. REVOLUTIONARY JUSTICE ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. “ESO”; a.k.a. “EXTERNAL SECURITY ORGANIZATION”; a.k.a. “EXTERNAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION”; a.k.a. “FOREIGN ACTION UNIT”; a.k.a. “FOREIGN RELATIONS DEPARTMENT”; a.k.a. “FRD”; a.k.a. “LH”; a.k.a. “SPECIAL OPERATIONS BRANCH”); Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Type: Transnational Terrorist Group [FTO] [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS (IRGC)-QODS FORCE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, the IRGC-QF, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before October 26, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law and what you need to do, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
Total Monetized Burden = Out-of-Pocket Costs + Monetized Time.
(b) The heads of relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, in consultation with State, local, tribal, territorial, and industry partners:
(c) The Secretary of War and the Administrator of NASA shall prioritize and coordinate on infrastructure investments that optimize launch and reentry capacity, flexibility, agility, resilience, and economies of scale at Federal launch and reentry facilities and ranges.
(d) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Transportation, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall develop and promulgate Federal range scheduling criteria to maximize efficient use of range resources for commercial users while ensuring United States Government needs are met.
(e) The Secretary of War, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall regularly publish range schedules to ensure transparent allocation of resources and optimize launch capacity.
(f) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of War and the Administrator of NASA, shall:
(g) The Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, shall ensure reliable access to spectrum for commercial and Federal space launch, reentry, recovery, and on-orbit activities. Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall report to the President, through the APST and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (APEP), on their approach to ensuring reliable access to spectrum.
(h) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA, the Secretary of Transportation, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall each report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), the APST, the APEP, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on actions to secure United States space launch infrastructure on Federal real property, including any recommendations for additional policy direction, resources, or authorities required to secure United States space launch infrastructure.
(i) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of NASA, shall evaluate the regulatory, programmatic, operational, and technological barriers for prompt, responsive, and resilient access to space, including the ability to accommodate accelerated timelines (
(j) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Secretary of War, the Secretary of Transportation, and the heads of other relevant agencies, and in consultation with local and industry stakeholders, as appropriate, shall identify Federal lands to serve as an additional designated Federal land reentry site.
(k) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Transportation shall evaluate reentry safety criteria to support the development of the designated Federal land reentry site.
(l) Within 240 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, shall produce a development plan for the designated Federal land reentry site that considers
(a) promotes and maintains a vibrant, competitive, and resilient space transportation industry to ensure continued leadership in space transportation capabilities and to enable American space superiority;
(b) facilitates a United States space transportation industry with increased capability, affordability, security, and resilience to meet the needs of United States Government and non-government users;
(c) strengthens and supports workforce development and retention programs, military service transition pathways, government-industry exchanges, and other talent pipelines to ensure the United States maintains a world-class space transportation workforce; and
(d) is reviewed and updated, as appropriate, every 2 years.
(a) export policies and programs, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of Transportation, to promote United States space transportation capabilities and standards abroad; protect United States intellectual property; and include industry advocacy, foreign sales, co-investment, co-development, market access, regulatory alignment, and technology protections; and
(b) export controls, in coordination with the Secretary of War, to enable United States export opportunities for space transportation-related capabilities to allies and partners.
(a) consistency with United States foreign policy and national security interests, including international obligations and nonproliferation commitments;
(b) effects on the overall health and competitiveness of the United States space industrial base;
(c) verifiable foreign direct investment in United States space markets, where applicable and consistent with broader United States policy considerations and constraints, including for the advancement of national scientific, technological, industrial, and strategic space interests;
(d) liability assumed and indemnification granted by the foreign entity for launch, reentry, and related activities in the event of claims involving the United States, United States persons, or United States entities; and
(e) effects on Federal launch site infrastructure and availability for Federal launch users.
(b) The Secretary of War and the Administrator of NASA, as the launch agents for national security and civil space missions, respectively, shall, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies:
(c) The Administrator of NASA, in consultation with the heads of other relevant agencies, shall:
(d) The Secretary of War shall:
(b) The heads of relevant agencies may submit requests for waivers, deviations from, or exceptions to this policy to the President through the APST.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of War is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the