Economic Research Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Justice Programs Office
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Energy Management Program, Department of Energy.
Notification of stay.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is reviewing its recent guidance related to the implementation of newly adopted provisions regarding Clean Energy for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings (CER). While DOE reviews the CER implementation guidance, DOE is staying the compliance date for the newly adopted provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
As of September 2, 2026, the compliance date for 10 CFR part 433, subpart B and 10 CFR part 435, subpart B, published at 89 FR 35384 (May 1, 2024), and stayed at 90 FR 18911 (May 5, 2025), and further stayed until September 1, 2026, at 91 FR 20868 (Apr. 20, 2026), is further stayed until March 1, 2027.
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Rick Mears, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, Phone: 240-278-5857, Email:
On May 1, 2024, DOE issued regulations that require certain new Federal buildings and Federal buildings undergoing major renovations to be designed to reduce their fossil fuel-generated energy consumption and provides a process for Federal agencies to petition for a downward adjustment from these requirements if applicable.
The final rule became effective on July 15, 2024, and applied the energy performance standards to certain newly constructed or majorly renovated Federal buildings for which design for construction begins on or after May 1, 2025. 89 FR 35384. On January 17, 2025, DOE posted guidance designed to assist Federal agencies to implement the final rule. Shortly after DOE published this implementation guidance document and the petition template, President Trump announced new energy policies, specifically those relating to energy security and reliability.
In May 2025, DOE published a notice that delayed the implementation of the final rule for one year. 90 FR 18911 (May 5, 2025). DOE stated that it was reviewing its implementation guidance to ensure that they are consistent with the policies of the current Administration. Accordingly, while DOE reviewed the implementation guidance and associated documents, DOE stayed the provisions of the recent final rule to avoid the regulatory burden to Federal agencies to comply with the rule. Specifically, DOE stayed subpart B, including Appendix A, of 10 CFR part 433 and subpart B, including Appendix A, of 10 CFR part 435. Because DOE stayed these provisions, Federal agencies were not required to comply with the applicable energy performance standards during this time.
In April 2026, DOE published a second notice that delayed the implementation of the final rule until September 1, 2026. 91 FR 20868 (Apr. 20, 2026). In the second notice, DOE stated that, in addition to reviewing the implementation guidance and associated documents, DOE was also reviewing the recent final rule to ensure consistency with stated energy policies and guidance relating to agency rulemaking.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 31, 2026, by Mary Sotos, the Director of the Federal Energy Management Program, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Maumee River within a 100-yard radius of the Toledo Country Club at 41°35′39.2″ N 83°35′47.7″ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on September 4, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST2 Jacob Allen, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo; (419) 418-6050,
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from 41°35′39.2″ N 83°35′47.7″ W at the Toledo Country Club in Toledo, OH on September 4, 2026. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 100 yards of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on July 31, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by September 4, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on September 4, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Maumee River within a 100-yard radius of 41°35′39.2″ N 83°35′47.7″ W in Toledo, OH. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of Lake St. Clair for a fireworks display. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an over water fireworks display. Entry of vessels or people into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on September 5, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact Tracy Girard, Sector Detroit Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 313-347-3007, or email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge in Lake St. Clair near Pier Park in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. COTP Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 560-foot radius of the fireworks launch site. Therefore, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by September 5, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 5, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Lake St. Clair within a 560-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at 42°24′30.85″ N, 82°52′60″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, near Annapolis, MD. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with a kayak race. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland—National Capital Region (NCR), or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 13, 2026.
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 443-257-4011, or email
On May 7, 2026, the Coast Guard received notification that a paddle boat race will be taking place in the Chesapeake Bay, from the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges. The Captain of the Port, Sector Maryland—National
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. There has been insufficient time to solicit and respond to comments, and publish a final safety zone by September 13, 2026, when it must be in place to serve its intended purpose.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 13, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. memorial bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N, longitude 076°23′47.93″ W; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N, longitude 076°22′40.24″ W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N, longitude 076°19′-58.40″ W; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yds south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N, longitude 076°24′28.36″ W; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N, longitude 076°23′59.67″ W; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N, longitude 076°23′25.53″ W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N, longitude 076°20′10.45″ W. The regulated area will be enforced from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. noon on September 13, 2026. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (443) 257-4011. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-17-07, which applies to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. AD 2021-17-07 requires inspecting for damage of the left and right motive flow (MF) flexible fuel line assemblies (including the flexible hose and shroud assemblies), and replacing damaged parts. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-17-07, the FAA has determined that four additional airplanes may be subject to the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2021-17-07 and expand the applicability. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 19, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Anthony Decaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5374; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Anthony Decaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5374; email:
The FAA issued AD 2021-17-07, Amendment 39-21690 (86 FR 44600, August 13, 2021) (AD 2021-17-07), for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. AD 2021-17-07 was prompted by an MCAI originated by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport Canada issued AD CF-2021-09, dated March 11, 2021 (Transport Canada AD CF-2021-09), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2021-17-07 requires an inspection for damage of the right and left MF flexible fuel hose assemblies (including the flexible hose and shroud assemblies) and replacing damaged parts. The FAA issued AD 2021-17-07
Since the FAA issued 2021-17-07, Transport Canada superseded Transport Canada AD CF-2021-09 and issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47, dated September 11, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that since Transport Canada AD CF-2021-09 was issued, a new installation procedure was implemented by Airbus Canada Limited Partnership in production, and it was discovered that Transport Canada AD CF-2021-09 was not correctly implemented on four additional Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2021-17-07, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2021-17-07. Those requirements are referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47, which specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for damage (including permanent deformities) of the left and right MF fuel line assemblies (including the flexible-hose assembly and shroud assembly), and replacement of affected MF fuel line assemblies (including cleaning of the ends of the flexible-hose assembly, injecting grease at both ends of the flexible-hose assembly, and torquing the aft end of the flexible-hose assembly).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the incorporation by reference (IBR) of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by October 19, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2021-17-07, Amendment 39-21690 (86 FR 44600, August 13, 2021).
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47, dated September 11, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by the potential of improper installation of the flexible hose assembly of the fuel motive flow (MF) during production that may result in a twist to the MF flexible fuel hose, which can restrict the flow of fuel for the MF and cause fuel imbalance and possible damage, including abrasion, to the shroud assembly. This AD was also prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in abrasion of the fuel line and a possible fuel leak; as a result, the electrical harness connectors in the wing area could be a potential ignition source and pose a risk of fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 refers to March 25, 2021 (the effective date of Transport Canada AD CF-2021-09), this AD requires using August 30, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-17-07).
(3) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 specifies to “if necessary, replace the left and right motive flow fuel line assemblies”, for this AD, replace that text with “if any damage (including any permanent deformity) is found on any motive flow flexible fuel line assembly, replace the damaged assembly before further flight”.
Although the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47 specifies to send removed parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Anthony Decaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5374; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-47, dated September 11, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
FAA proposes to implement certain Special Air Traffic Rules in the airspace in the vicinity of the President Donald J. Trump International Airport (DJT), formerly Palm Beach International Airport (PBI). U.S. Secret Service (USSS) requested FAA restrict aircraft operations in the vicinity of President Trump's Florida non-Governmental property. To provide adequate safeguards for USSS to secure the non-Governmental property and safeguard USSS protectees in the interest of national security, FAA is proposing to implement Special Air Traffic Rules restricting aircraft from operating in the President Donald J. Trump International Airport Special Flight Rules Area unless certain conditions are met.
Send comments on or before October 2, 2026.
Send comments identified by docket number
•
•
•
•
Michael Quigley, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Air Traffic Control Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8783.
FAA proposes to revise its regulations to add subpart I to 14 CFR part 93 to implement Special Air Traffic Rules (SATR)
Specifically, the SATR would restrict aircraft operations in the area defined in the proposed § 93.109,
• When there is an active temporary flight restriction (TFR) issued pursuant to § 91.141 for the DJT SFRA, the operation must comply with the requirements and restrictions contained in the associated Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
• When there is not an active TFR in place:
○ For aircraft departing or arriving at President Donald J. Trump International Airport (DJT), the aircraft may transit the DJT SFRA if it is on an active instrument flight rules (IFR) or visual flight rules (VFR) flight plan with an approved instrument approach procedure (IAP), or an air traffic control (ATC) assigned departure procedure (DP), or radar vector for departure. It must remain in two-way radio communication with ATC; receive an ATC authorization to enter the airspace; and transmit a discrete transponder code assigned by ATC.
○ For military aircraft directly supporting USSS or the Office of the President, active law enforcement flights, active firefighting flights, active air ambulance flights, or flights otherwise authorized by ATC for safety of flight or safety of persons and property on the ground. The aircraft
FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found 49 U.S.C. 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. The scope of FAA's authority is further described in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 40103. Under that section, FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace, as well as protecting individuals and property on the ground. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) charges FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for cybersecurity and other practices, methods, and procedures FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
In September 2025, FAA began restricting access to the airspace in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida, at USSS's request through TFRs pursuant to 14 CFR 91.141,
On September 16, 2025, in a letter to FAA, USSS requested FAA establish a permanent flight restriction within one NM of Mar-A-Lago Club from the surface up to 1,000 feet AGL “to ensure the safety and security” of President Trump in the interest of national security. USSS also stated “[t]hese restrictions are requested due to adverse threat intelligence and the ongoing protective mission of USSS. In addition, these would greatly increase the ability to mitigate the persistent risks posed by unauthorized aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operating in proximity to sensitive areas.”
On October 18, 2025, as an interim measure, FAA issued a special security instruction (SSI) flight restriction pursuant to 14 CFR 99.7 via NOTAM FDC 5/2809
Under the SSI flight restriction only those aircraft authorized by ATC are permitted to operate in the airspace. Those aircraft must also (1) be on an active IFR flight plan with an approved IAP or ATC assigned radar vector for departures and (2) transmit a discrete transponder code assigned by an ATC facility. When the President, Vice President, or other public figures travel to Palm Beach, FAA layers the § 91.141 TFR over the SSI flight restriction.
The FC 5/2809 SSI flight restriction is an interim solution that would be replaced by the SFRA in which FAA implements the SATR proposed in this rule. Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b) and in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551,
To restrict access permanently, FAA could establish a prohibited area under 14 CFR part 73 or create a special air traffic rules area under 14 CFR part 93. With a prohibited area, under 14 CFR 73.85, aircraft would not be permitted to enter the area unless they obtain permission from the using agency.
FAA has prohibited the operation of aircraft in the vicinity of seven presidential and vice presidential residences in the interest of national security by establishing a prohibited area pursuant to 14 CFR part 73. Prohibited areas are designated when necessary to prohibit all flight within an area, except in very limited circumstances, in the interest of national security. No person may conduct operations within a prohibited area without the permission of the using agency. FAA has established prohibited areas in the vicinity of the following former presidential and vice presidential residences:
• On February 18, 1969, FAA established P-29 in the vicinity of Key Biscayne, Florida.
• On June 23, 1969, FAA established P-25 in the vicinity of San Mateo, California to provide adequate safeguards for the protection of President Nixon and persons or property on the ground.
• On February 18, 1977, FAA established P-77 in the vicinity of Plains, Georgia.
• On January 20, 1981, FAA established P-65 in the vicinity of Pacific Palisades, California, and P-66 in the vicinity of Rancho del Cielo, California based on USSS's request.
• On November 26, 1981, FAA established P-67 in the vicinity of Kennebunkport, Maine. FAA prohibited operations within one NM radius from the surface to 1,000 feet MSL.
• On May 17, 2001, FAA established P-49 in the vicinity of Crawford, Texas, in response to a USSS request.
In contrast to part 73 prohibited areas, part 93 establishes special air traffic rules operators must comply with to transit a certain area. Special air traffic rules are non-standard rules applicable to aircraft operating within the boundaries of certain airspace. Aircraft are not outright prohibited from transiting the area but must comply with certain rules when operating in the area. For example, a special air traffic rules area might include a requirement to operate via IFR at a certain altitude,
If this rule is finalized as proposed, FAA, in coordination with USSS as needed for security purposes, would have the flexibility to allow operations meeting certain criteria as described in the proposed rule, to transit through the area and to continue to use Runway 28R/10L. This proposed part 93 SFRA protects the President and ensures USSS can secure Mar-A-Lago Club while at the same time minimizing the impact to aircraft arriving and departing President Donald J. Trump International Airport (DJT) and essential safety and security services.
Therefore, in the interest of national security and the public right of transit, FAA proposes to add subpart I to part 93 to establish SATR in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida.
FAA proposes adding a new subpart I, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of President Donald J. Trump International Airport, to 14 CFR part 93 (consisting of §§ 93.107, 93.109, and 93.111) that would codify the current configuration of the SSI flight restriction in effect in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida. This rule would apply to all persons seeking to operate in the area defined in § 93.109. The breadth of applicability is necessary in the interest of national security and to ensure USSS' ability to secure the non-Governmental property.
Proposed § 93.109 would establish a flight restriction from the surface to 2,000 feet MSL within a one NM radius of Mar-A-Lago Club, latitude 26°40′37″ N, longitude 80°02′16″ W. The proposed vertical and lateral dimensions of the flight restrictions align with the current § 99.7 SSI flight restriction in effect, with a slight difference in that the proposed rule uses 2,000 feet MSL instead of 2,000 feet AGL. Usage of 2,000 feet MSL as opposed to 2,000 feet AGL results in the ceiling of the one NM area being about 20 feet lower at approximately 1,980 feet AGL.
FAA selected vertical and lateral limits that impose the minimum burden on the public while still providing security mitigations acceptable to USSS. The proposed limits would allow the continued use of all runways at DJT.
A prohibited area would mean that aircraft could not cross into the one NM area without permission from the using agency each time. Permission to enter a prohibited area would likely only happen in very limited circumstances, such as emergency response. Based on the impact a flight prohibition would have on aircraft departing or arriving at DJT, FAA is proposing a SFRA in which it implements operating rules in lieu of a prohibited area and is proposing to permit the continuation of certain operations that comply with the requirements of proposed 14 CFR 93.111(a)(1) and (a)(2). Moreover, due to the SFRA's proximity to the town of Palm Beach and nearby bodies of water, and the continued access to the Mar-A-Lago Club by members, guests, and staff, FAA recognizes the need to permit emergency services operations within the SFRA (such emergency services operations are active law enforcement, active firefighting, active air ambulance, and flights otherwise authorized by ATC for safety of flight and the safety of persons and property on the ground). Moreover, due to USSS's mandate to secure the Mar-A-Lago Club and ensure the safety of its protectees, military aircraft directly supporting USSS or the Office of the President need to be able to access the DJT SFRA. To preserve access to Runway 28R/10L, FAA proposes allowing operations through the DJT SFRA if they comply with the requirements in 14 CFR 93.111(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Mar-A-Lago Club is located in close proximity to DJT. DJT has three runways: 28R/10L, 28L/10R and 14/32. Runway 28R/10L is an east/west configuration and is the primary runway for commercial aircraft operations. To land or depart safely on Runway 28R/10L, aircraft need to enter the area covered by the one NM radius SFRA. Under the current SSI flight restriction, instrument approach and departure procedures place aircraft at about the 0.85 NM mark. This proposed rule would allow for the same or similar instrument approach procedures as are in effect now at DJT. If FAA established a prohibited area, aircraft would not be able to arrive at or depart DJT from Runway 28R/10L without entering the one NM area because the turns and climb gradient required to avoid the area would exceed the performance characteristics of some aircraft. In addition, aircraft would need to be airborne at an earlier point on the runway to begin the climb in time to avoid the prohibited area, leaving less usable runway length for departures. Aircraft would essentially be unable to use Runway 28R/10L if FAA established a prohibited area rather than a part 93 SFRA. Though Runway 14/32 is available, it is approximately 3,000 feet shorter than the primary runway and would limit commercial traffic if Runway 28R/10L were unavailable. Runway 28L/10R is a 3,200 foot runway available to Aircraft Design Group (ADG) I aircraft only. Establishing a flight prohibition over Mar-A-Lago Club would severely restrict access to DJT.
Due to the location of the proposed SFRA, FAA recognizes the need to allow continued access to aircraft providing emergency and lifesaving services. The continued access to this airspace in these situations would be permitted because the most direct course possible is critical for these operations, and necessary to respond to an emergency within the SFRA. These critical or time-sensitive safety or security operations should be exceedingly rare. Active law enforcement flights would include those operations involving aviation responses to ongoing crime or criminal activity. Active firefighting flights would include those that involve aviation responses to aid the suppression, control, or extinguishment of a fire. Active air ambulance flights would include those where a medically equipped aircraft is engaged in transporting a patient or responding to an emergency call. Flights otherwise authorized by ATC for safety of flight would include operations for which force majeure requires the aircraft to transit the DJT SFRA for the safety of the aircraft. This may include situations in which weather forces aircraft to enter the airspace to arrive or depart from DJT that are not on an active VFR or IFR flight plan. Finally, this rule would permit operations otherwise authorized by ATC necessary for the safety of persons and property on the ground. These permitted operations are intended to include aircraft directly involved in saving lives and providing disaster/hazard relief. For purposes of this rule, these other permitted operations are narrow in scope, intended to enhance safety, and provide for critical services that must occur in the SFRA or require transit through the SFRA.
For all the permitted operations discussed above, the proposed rule would also require those aircraft to (1) remain in two-way radio communication with ATC, (2) have received an ATC authorization to enter the DJT SFRA, and (3) continuously transmit (“squawk”) a discrete transponder code assigned by ATC. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure only permitted aircraft enter the airspace and ATC, along with USSS, retain situational awareness of when and where these operations are occurring for national security purposes. These requirements allow for easier identification and tracking of the aircraft within the DJT SFRA helping ensure security in the SFRA by enabling FAA and its security partners to better differentiate aircraft that may pose a security threat. Aircraft authorized by air traffic control to operate through the proposed SFRA would be mandated to comply with strict requirements. This would ensure risk mitigation is not diminished while at the same time allowing safe, orderly air traffic operations.
When the President, Vice President, or other public figures travel in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida, FAA will continue issuing a § 91.141 TFR that would cover the DJT SFRA. The DJT SFRA would lie within the inner 10 NM rings of the § 91.141 TFR. The requirements and restrictions on operations under the § 91.141 TFR are more restrictive than the proposed SATR because of the need to protect the non-Governmental property as well as the President and other public figures. To achieve the necessary security goals and to avoid confusion for operators, when a § 91.141 TFR is issued for the
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f) of E.O. 12866.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-4, the baseline represents the best assessment of conditions in the absence of the proposed regulatory action. For this primary analysis, the baseline is the continuation of the existing SSI flight restriction that is currently in effect in the vicinity of Palm Beach, Florida until October 20, 2026. The restriction ensures security for the President and the non-Governmental property at Mar-A-Lago Club. The affected area is centered on the Palm Beach VORTAC 097 degree radial at 2.6 NM, with a radius of one NM, from the surface up to and including 2,000 feet AGL. Aircraft departing or arriving DJT airport can only enter the affected airspace if they adhere to specific security criteria: the aircraft must be arriving or departing DJT on an IFR Flight Plan or on a VFR flight plan, use an approved approach or ATC-assigned departure route, have a unique ATC-assigned beacon code at all times, stay in two-way radio contact with ATC, and get ATC clearance to enter the DJT SFRA.
To address presidential safety and security concerns on a permanent basis, USSS has requested that FAA establish a permanent flight restriction within one NM of Mar-A-Lago Club from the surface up to 1,000 feet. Historically, when USSS has identified a security need for airspace restrictions near presidential or vice-presidential residences, FAA has established a permanent restriction in the form of a prohibited area under part 73 to maintain national security. However, designating this specific airspace a permanent part 73 prohibited area would severely limit routine operations at the DJT airport and restrict access by emergency and security operators unless approved by the using agency.
DJT has three runways: 28R/10L, 28L/10R, and 14/32. Runway 28R/10L is the primary commercial runway and averaged approximately 86 air carrier operations per day in 2025.
The proposed rule would establish a part 93 SFRA in which SATRs would be implemented, replacing the temporary SSI flight restriction with a permanent regulatory framework. The SATR would permit most operations currently authorized by ATC under the current SSI flight restriction with the exception of adding VFR flight plan arrivals and removing the “unless otherwise authorized” language contained in the SSI flight restriction, except when superseded by FAA's issuance of a flight restriction under § 91.141. Instead, in § 93.111(a)(2), FAA would identify specific types of operations that are permissible so long as they adhere to the requirements in § 93.111(b) and (c). By enabling routine air carrier and emergency operations to transit the SFRA under ATC control if they adhere to the specific security criteria, the proposed rule would preserve operational capacity at DJT while meeting the permanent security needs requested by USSS.
The specific security criteria for aircraft departing from or arriving at DJT include an active VFR or IFR flight plan, two-way radio communication, ATC authorization, and transmitting a discrete transponder code assigned by ATC. Since these criteria are already part of normal operating procedures at DJT under the current SSI flight restriction, the proposed rule results in no additional costs to operators.
The proposed SATR would establish a permanent restriction that maintains the existing security requirements under the current SSI flight restriction, while ensuring little to no impact on the daily flow of traffic at DJT airport. In addition, the proposed rule would allow certain emergency security and safety operations as specified in proposed § 93.111(b) to transit the SFRA with ATC authorization, resulting in no increased costs to those operators. FAA would also make clear in § 93.111(a) only those operations in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of a flight restriction issued under § 91.141 would be permitted in the SFRA when the TFR is active. Overall, the proposed rule would achieve the national security objectives with no incremental cost relative to current operating conditions for operators.
FAA also evaluated the costs and benefits of the proposed rule against an alternative baseline in which the temporary SSI flight restriction expires without being replaced or renewed. Under this unrestricted airspace baseline, the proposed rule would impose costly operational requirements on operators at DJT airport—specifically maintaining two-way radio communication, transmitting discrete transponder codes, and obtaining ATC authorization.
However, extending the temporary SSI flight restriction represents the most likely future scenario in the absence of the proposed action. The incremental impact is then expected to be minimal because most operators using DJT airport are already required to communicate with and receive authorization from ATC based on the airspace classification near the airport. Furthermore, operators have also adapted to these requirements through the current temporary restriction. Moreover, the proposed rule would achieve national security objectives with minimal incremental costs to operators.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121,) and the Small
Commercial and general aviation operators departing and arriving at DJT airport would be affected by this proposed rule. Based on the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard (Table 1), FAA has identified several small operators at DJT airport.
However, FAA anticipates no incremental costs to these operators, as the proposed security requirements align with existing standard operating procedures currently in effect at DJT. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FAA welcomes comments on the basis for this certification.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined it ensures the safety of the American public and does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, FAA does not consider this proposed rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal Government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined the proposed rule would not result in the expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA has preliminarily analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321,
FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism.
Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
FAA analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to (1) meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or (2) prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rule. Before finalizing this proposed rule, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA may change this proposed rule in light of the comments received.
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 this proposed rule contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and is relevant or responsive to this proposed rule, it is important you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this proposed rule. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the
A copy of this proposed rule, all comments received, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.
All documents FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under the
Air traffic control, Airports, Airspace, Navigation (air).
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.
This subpart prescribes special air traffic rules for persons seeking to conduct operations in the President Donald J. Trump International Airport Special Flight Rules Area (DJT SFRA).
The DJT SFRA is designated as that airspace extending upward from the
(a) No person may operate an aircraft in the DJT SFRA unless the person is conducting an operation—
(1) In accordance with the operating restrictions and requirements of a temporary flight restriction issued pursuant to § 91.141 for the DJT SFRA; or
(2) In accordance with the special air traffic rules in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section when a temporary flight restriction has not been issued pursuant to § 91.141 for the DJT SFRA.
(b) Operations in the DJT SFRA are restricted to the following:
(1) Aircraft arriving to President Donald J. Trump International Airport on an active IFR or VFR flight plan on an approved instrument approach procedure;
(2) Aircraft departing from President Donald J. Trump International Airport on an active IFR or VFR flight plan on an assigned departure procedure or radar vector;
(3) Military aircraft directly supporting the United States Secret Service or the Office of the President;
(4) Aircraft conducting an active law enforcement flight;
(5) Aircraft conducting an active firefighting flight;
(6) Aircraft conducting an active air ambulance flight;
(7) Aircraft otherwise authorized by ATC for safety of flight;
(8) Aircraft otherwise authorized by ATC for the safety of persons and property on the ground.
(c) Aircraft operating within the DJT SFRA must:
(1) Remain in two-way radio communication with ATC;
(2) Receive an ATC authorization to enter the DJT SFRA; and
(3) Transmit a discrete transponder code assigned by ATC.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, and 44701(a) in Washington, DC.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) is proposing an amendment to designate debt obligations issued by the European Union as “exempted securities” for the purposes of marketing and trading futures contracts on those securities in the United States or to U.S. persons. The amendment is designed to permit futures trading on debt obligations issued by the European Union to be regulated as futures on “exempted securities,” subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. The proposal is intended to increase U.S. persons' access to the market for these products, which may improve opportunities for hedging; lower transaction costs; contribute to greater market depth; reduce operational friction; and increase competition.
This release was published in the
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments to Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at
A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on the Commission's website (
Alexandra Oprea, Special Counsel, John Guidroz, Assistant Director, Office of Derivatives Policy, or Carol McGee, Associate Director, Office of Derivatives Policy and Trading Practices, at (202) 551-5870, Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission is proposing amendments to 17 CFR 240.3a12-8 (“Rule 3a12-8” or the “Rule”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The Commission is proposing to amend Rule 3a12-8 to designate the debt obligations of the European Union (“EU”) as “exempted securities” for purposes only of the offer, sale or confirmation of futures contracts on the EU's debt obligations. As discussed throughout this release, the proposed amendment would harmonize the regulatory treatment of the debt obligations of the EU with the regulatory treatment of the debt obligations of 11 EU member states that are currently listed in Rule 3a12-8, which would subject futures contracts on the EU's debt obligations to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures
Prior to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”),
In 2000, Congress enacted the CFMA,
For the purposes of the Rule, the debt obligations of Designated Foreign Governments (“Designated Foreign Government Securities”) are exempted securities for purposes only of the trading of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts and therefore are excluded from the definition of security futures. As a result, futures contracts on the debt obligations of the governments listed in the Rule may be sold in the U.S. or to U.S. persons subject to the applicable futures regulations under the CEA and in a manner consistent with the definitions in the Rule.
The Commission is proposing to amend Rule 3a12-8 to designate the debt obligations of the EU as exempted securities solely for the purposes of the offer, sale or confirmation of sale of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts on those securities, thereby applying the same regulatory treatment (
In March 2026, the CFTC and the SEC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding.
Prior to the passage of the CFMA, it was unlawful to trade a futures contract on any individual security other than exempted securities under section 3 of the Securities Act or section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act.
In 1984, the Commission adopted Rule 3a12-8 to designate debt obligations issued by the UK or Canadian government as exempted
The Rule includes definitions that are intended to facilitate the trading of futures contracts on Designated Foreign Government Securities in the U.S. or by U.S. persons while requiring offerings of the underlying securities to comply with the Federal securities laws. Specifically, for the exemption to apply, the definition of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts requires that: (1) the futures contract be traded on or through a board of trade as defined in 7 U.S.C. 2 and (2) the futures contracts require delivery outside the United States, including any of its possessions or territories.
In 2000, the CFMA lifted the ban on single security futures and created a new regime for security futures products, granting joint jurisdiction to the Commission and the CFTC.
The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 required the Commission, the CFTC, or both, as appropriate, to take action under their existing authorities to permit, by June 30, 2009, the trading of futures on certain security indexes by resolving issues related to foreign security indexes.
In addition to the above access-related requirements, the conditional pathway established by the 2009 Exemptive Order also imposes requirements with respect to the lifecycle of the transactions and types of underliers that qualify under the 2009 Exemptive Order. With respect to the lifecycle-related requirements, it conditions applicability on several of the relevant activities occurring abroad; for instance, the foreign security futures must be issued, cleared, and settled outside of the U.S., in addition to satisfying other requirements.
Although the 2009 Exemptive Order allows for the trading of futures on EU debt obligations under certain conditions,
As such, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 3a12-8 to expand the definition of “Designated Foreign Government Securities” to include “a debt obligation of the EU,” which would render such debt obligations “exempted securities” under the terms of the Rule for purposes only of the trading of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts.
For the reasons discussed throughout, the Commission is proposing to allow the debt obligations of the EU to be considered exempted securities for the purposes only of the offer, sale or confirmation of sale of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts in the U.S. or to U.S. persons and to expand the definition of Designated Foreign Government Securities to include debt obligations of the EU.
As a general matter, the regime established by the CFMA for security futures, as well as the Commission's 2009 Exemptive Order, address the regulation of security futures under the Federal securities laws. Since the passage of the CFMA, the Rule has remained unchanged, and as a result, market participants have continued to rely upon the Rule for transactions in Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts. U.S. investors, however, currently experience differing access to hedging, asset allocation and risk management opportunities via futures referencing debt obligations of the eleven member states of the EU that are Designated Foreign Governments than they do for futures referencing EU debt obligations, as the latter are not currently included in Rule 3a12-8. Their inclusion would create additional avenues, outside of the CFMA regulatory framework and apart from the 2009 Exemptive Order, for investors to trade futures on EU debt obligations: as futures on exempted securities, futures on EU debt obligations would be accessible to investors on FBOTs providing direct access.
The EU and its debt obligations present distinctive economic and institutional characteristics.
The Commission has considered the classification of the EU, particularly in the context of bond issuance.
Rule 3a12-8 applies to the debt obligations of 21 sovereign nations,
First, the eleven member states included in the Rule collectively account for more than 80% of the aggregate GDP of the EU.
Second, the EU is substantially represented within the Rule in terms of sovereign bond market activity as reflected in both total notional traded and transaction frequency. Close to 70% of the actively traded sovereign bonds within the EU are reflected in the Rule via Italy, Germany, France and Spain.
The Commission may expand the list of Designated Foreign Governments if it finds that it is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
In the most recent determinations to amend the Rule to include Sweden and Belgium, the Commission considered credit ratings
For purposes of including EU debt obligations in the Rule, the Commission is considering the credit worthiness of the EU; however, the Commission is not considering credit ratings as a means of measuring credit worthiness.
Regulatory capital rules and requirements promulgated by the Prudential Regulators, which assign a zero percent risk weight to exposures to the European Commission (the EU's issuance agent), serve as an indicator of credit quality and as indirect evidence of liquidity.
Furthermore, for the purposes of the U.S. Uncleared Margin Rules,
An analysis of trading data for the EU indicates that it is comparable to the sovereign issuers listed in Rule 3a12-8, as discussed below. Bonds are the EU's main funding instrument.
As shown in Table 1, the European Commission indicates that in 2025, the EU had €702 billion of bonds outstanding and had a record high number of bond issuances, raising €153 billion via long-term issuance.
Table 2 demonstrates that there is a liquid market for EU bonds in the EU and UK markets in relation to other government bonds, including those of the U.S. government and of governments that are currently included in the Rule as Designated Foreign Governments.
As indicated in Table 2, EU bonds ranked seventh in terms of notional value of trades across the EU and UK markets, with a turnover of €1,145.8 billion and a 3.1% market share, during the first half of 2025.
As Table 3 demonstrates, in the first half of 2025, the average trade size for EU bonds stood at €12,111,253 and the median at €2,500,000.
Spain, a government that is included in Rule 3a12-8, provides a useful comparison, given the similarity in trading volume of its bonds (“Spanish Bonos”), with which to analyze the trading data of EU bonds. EU bonds and Spanish Bonos share similar volumes and represent comparable shares in EU and UK markets.
In addition to the market-based criteria discussed above, the Commission considers the availability of investor information to be a relevant factor in the inclusion determination because it enhances investor protection. For example, the Commission has historically considered the availability of information in the English language to weigh in favor of inclusion.
In summary, the Commission's consideration of the above-described factors suggests that futures on the debt obligations of the EU should be subject to the same regulatory treatment under the Rule as futures on the debt obligations of the Designated Foreign Governments. Accordingly, consistent with the public interest and for the protection of investors, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 3a12-8 to include the EU as a Designated Foreign Government.
The Commission generally requests comment from the public on the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 to designate the debt obligations of the EU as exempted securities solely for the purposes of the offer, sale or confirmation of sale of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts on those debt obligations. More specific requests for comment are set forth below. Responses supported by empirical data are particularly helpful.
Q1. Are the factors used by the Commission to determine whether the list of Designated Foreign Governments should be expanded sufficiently broad? Should the Commission revise its approach or consider additional criteria or factors?
Q2. Are the measures of what constitutes a liquid and active secondary market in EU debt obligations described in this release appropriate? If not, what other measures of liquidity should the Commission consider?
Q3. What are the commenters' views regarding the sufficiency or robustness of the factors and data used by the Commission in section III.B. to support its views of the EU and its debt obligations? Should other factors or evidence be considered by the Commission in deciding whether to add the EU to the Rule? If so, what additional evidence should the Commission consider in deciding whether to add the EU to the Rule?
Q4. As discussed above, the Dodd-Frank Act instructed the Commission to remove from its regulations any references to credit ratings and replace them with alternative standards of creditworthiness. As a result, the Commission is taking into consideration other means of measuring credit worthiness for the purposes of including EU debt obligations in the Rule. Is the Commission's consideration of risk weight in the context of this proposal appropriate? Should other alternatives be considered and if so, which?
Q5. Is the Commission's consideration of collateral eligibility as an indicator of liquidity appropriate in the context of this proposal? Should other indicators of liquidity be considered? Please explain.
Q6. Do commenters believe that the Commission's assessment of the EU as a “unique” issuer akin to a sovereign issuer in capital markets is accurate? Is the assessment that EU debt obligations are comparable to those of sovereign members of the EU appropriate? Are there other metrics that the Commission should have considered in analyzing the EU's status relative to other sovereigns or supranationals?
Q7. Is the fact that eleven EU member states already qualify as Designated Foreign Governments under the Rule a relevant factor weighing in favor of adding the EU to Rule 3a12-8? Given that more than half of the Designated Foreign Governments included in Rule 3a12-8 are EU member states, do commenters believe that the EU is already functionally captured in the Rule insofar as its core issuers
Q8. Do market participants agree that there is sufficient investor information regarding EU debt obligations that is publicly available to allow them to make an informed decision?
Q9. To what extent do market participants currently rely on Rule 3a12-8? Given the CFMA, as well as the 2009 Exemptive Order, should the Commission repeal the Rule? If the Commission were to repeal the Rule, what, if any, additional costs or burdens would be borne by market participants? For example, if the Commission were to repeal Rule 3a12-8, to the extent that FBOTs would be unwilling or unable to register with the Commission to offer futures on debt obligations of the Designated Foreign Governments, U.S. investors could be harmed by the loss of these hedging and risk management opportunities. Alternatively, given that the 2009 Exemptive Order also addresses futures on foreign debt,
Q10. Should the Commission consider amending the Rule to include the debt obligations of additional governments and/or entities in the Rule or excluding any governments from the Rule? For example, should the Commission include the debt obligations of other member states of the EU in the definition of Designated Foreign Government Securities (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia)? If so, taking into account the considerations used by the Commission to add Designated Foreign Governments to the list of governments in the Rule, as described in section III.B. above, please explain why such additional governments and/or entities should be included in the Rule.
Q11. Should Rule 3a12-8 apply to cash-settled perpetual contracts to the extent they are structured as security futures (as opposed to security-based swaps) or should Rule 3a12-8 exclude such contracts? What potential impact would each approach have on markets for the underlier and for the futures markets?
Although there is a generally understood meaning of “EU debt obligations” in common and market parlance, there is not a defined term for debt obligations of the European Union in the Exchange Act, the Securities Act or the rules thereunder. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to add the following definition: “The term
As discussed above in section II, Rule 3a12-8 includes definitions that are intended to ensure that the exemption facilitates the trading of futures contracts on Designated Foreign Government Securities in the U.S. or to U.S. persons while requiring that offerings of the underlying securities comply with applicable Federal
The limitations in the Rule's definitions ensure that (i) transactions remain subject to oversight, namely that the transactions would fall under the CFTC's futures regulatory regime applicable to (both foreign and domestic) boards of trade;
Q12. Should a definition of “debt obligations of the EU” be included within the Rule? If so, does the proposed definition of “debt obligations of the EU” adequately identify which EU debt obligations would be eligible under the Rule or are additional descriptors and/or definitions necessary to specify which debt obligations would qualify under the Rule? If additional descriptors are necessary, please identify and explain them.
Q13. The proposed definition of “debt obligations of the EU” is consistent with the approach used in official European Commission documents and is limited to borrowings that are direct and unconditional obligations of the European Union. Should the limitation to borrowings that are direct and unconditional obligations of the European Union be included in the definition of “debt obligations of the EU” or should it be removed? Should the definition be changed to include indirect obligations, conduit financing, or other financing structures? Alternatively, should such a limitation be added to paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 3a12-8, which would limit the term Designated Foreign Government Security to only include direct and unconditional debt obligations of the Designated Foreign Governments and the EU?
Q14. Should the debt obligations of the EU be subject to the requirements in the existing definition that the futures contract be traded on or through a board of trade? Please explain.
Q15. Should the exemption for futures on EU securities require that the underlying EU securities have been neither registered under the Securities Act nor been the subject of any American depositary receipt so registered, as required by the Rule's current definition of “Designated Foreign Government Security”? Is the definition appropriately tailored to ensure that a market for the underlying securities does not develop in the U.S. absent compliance with the Federal securities laws?
Q16. The Rule's existing definition of a “Designated Foreign Government Security” requires that it be neither registered under the Securities Act nor the subject of any American depositary receipt so registered.
Q17. Should the Rule require that the futures contract not allow for delivery of the underlying EU securities in the U.S. or in any of its possessions or territories? Are the definitions for Designated Foreign Government Security and Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts appropriately tailored to ensure that a market for the underlying EU securities does not develop in the U.S. absent compliance with the Federal securities laws? Please explain.
The Commission is mindful of the economic effects that may result from the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8, including the benefits, costs, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Under the current framework, futures on the debt of the twenty-one Designated Foreign Governments (11 of which are EU member states) are treated as futures on exempted securities, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
This asymmetric treatment is not grounded in a meaningful economic distinction between EU debt obligations and the debt obligations of the Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states; it reflects the fact that the Rule's list of Designated Foreign Governments was last expanded before the EU developed into a significant debt issuer. As discussed in the baseline below, EU debt obligations have achieved a scale, liquidity profile, and credit quality increasingly comparable to those of sovereign issuers already designated under the Rule. The U.S. Prudential Regulators assign a zero percent risk weight to exposures to the European Commission, which is the same risk weight assigned to exposures directly and unconditionally guaranteed by the U.S. government. The ECB assigns EU bonds to the same haircut category as sovereign bonds.
The consequences of this disparity impact two categories of U.S. market participants. First, U.S. investors that do not qualify as QIBs currently do not have access to futures on EU bonds, because the application of the 2009 Exemptive Order (
The proposed amendment is designed to address this disparity by applying the same regulatory treatment to futures on EU debt as futures on the debt of Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states. It does so through two elements: (i) adding the EU to the Rule's list of issuers whose debt is designated as exempted securities solely for purposes of the offer, sale, or confirmation of sale of Qualifying Foreign Futures Contracts on those obligations; and (ii) adding a definition of “debt obligation of the European Union” to identify the instruments within the Rule's scope. This means that the Rule's conditions (
The proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 could have several economic effects. The proposed amendment could create benefits such as the expansion of the number of venues through which U.S. market participants may trade futures on EU bonds and could broaden access to those markets for certain categories of U.S. traders who currently face restrictions (
At the same time, if U.S. futures exchanges start trading futures on EU bonds, the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 could make it more difficult for regulators to surveil trading activity across jurisdictions, which in turn may make it more difficult to detect some forms of market manipulation in the markets for EU bonds and futures on EU bonds. However, existing data sharing agreements the CFTC has with FBOTs and MOUs it maintains with foreign regulators are likely to limit this effect.
The Commission has considered these and other economic effects discussed below. The Commission is providing a qualitative assessment of them, supplemented by quantitative information where available. The Commission is unable to quantify many of these effects for two reasons. First, the Commission cannot reasonably obtain certain data that may inform its analysis of those effects. Second, even where the Commission has some data, quantification is not practicable due to the number and type of assumptions necessary to quantify certain economic
U.S. investors can currently trade futures contracts on EU debt obligations through the conditional pathway established by the 2009 Exemptive Order.
The 2009 Exemptive Order grants conditional exemptive relief permitting U.S. QIBs,
In contrast, under Rule 3a12-8, futures on the debt of Designated Foreign Governments fall under the CFTC's foreign-futures regime as “exempted securities” and are accessible by a broader set of U.S. investors (
Differentiated regulatory treatment exists between futures on the debt obligations of EU member states that are Designated Foreign Governments and futures on debt obligations of the EU, even though the characteristics of EU debt obligations have grown increasingly comparable to those of the designated EU sovereigns. More specifically, the EU's credit quality resembles that of designated EU sovereigns, its issuance has grown to approximate an established sovereign's scale and structure, and its market liquidity is consistent with a sovereign-style curve.
Under the current regulatory framework, U.S. investors seeking to hedge EU debt obligations face a different set of available instruments than those seeking to hedge the debt obligations of EU member states that are Designated Foreign Governments under Rule 3a12-8. Futures on the debt obligations of those member states are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC and may be traded on U.S. futures exchanges by a broader set of U.S. investors (
The asymmetry in the treatment of futures on the debt obligations of EU member states and futures on the debt obligations of the EU may be associated with fragmented liquidity and potential differences in transaction costs. The current framework may also affect operational considerations such as cross-margining, collateral use, and broker connectivity for participants who treat EU member state and EU debt obligations as substitutable instruments for euro rate hedging purposes.
EU debt issuance has grown substantially in scale and turnover and has developed secondary-market support mechanisms, including dedicated quoting arrangements and repurchase transaction infrastructure. EU debt obligations exhibit credit-quality characteristics comparable to the debt obligations of EU member states that are currently Designated Foreign Governments under Rule 3a12-8.
In less than a decade, EU debt has reached a scale comparable to that of EU sovereign issuers currently designated under Rule 3a12-8, measured by outstanding debt and issuance depth.
The composition of EU debt at the end of 2025 reflects an issuance structure that approximates those of established sovereign issuers: roughly 95 percent of outstanding debt was issued as bonds and about 5 percent as bills, with EU bonds serving as the dominant funding instrument and EU bills providing short-term money-market flexibility.
The trading volume in the secondary market for EU bonds has grown rapidly, and the supporting market infrastructure is comparable to that of the bonds of other Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states.
U.S. futures exchanges and FBOTs maintain various surveillance mechanisms. These mechanisms are both embedded within each exchange, and facilitated through various agreements, some of which are cross-border. Some of these mechanisms are enforced by the CFTC through Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with market authorities in other countries. EU member states have surveillance requirements set by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). ESMA rules facilitate the sharing of information across the market for futures on EU debt obligations and the market for EU debt obligations.
The CFTC requires U.S. futures exchanges to maintain active oversight of trades conducted on their exchanges.
ESMA rules are particularly relevant, to the extent that debt obligations of the EU trade within the framework of the ESMA. The ESMA has rules governing surveillance, including the collection of client IDs and execution data.
Exchanges in the futures market compete to supply traders with execution services. These trading venues, which compete to match traders with counterparties, provide a framework for trading and for the dissemination of trading information. Currently, the Commission's 2009 Exemptive Order only allows QIBs or their intermediaries to trade futures on foreign sovereign bonds not treated as exempted securities under Rule 3a12-8 (including futures on EU debt obligations) on certain FBOTs.
The benefits that may accrue from the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 would primarily affect U.S. investors who currently trade futures on EU bonds on FBOTs (
The proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 would create benefits for U.S. investors and the EU. U.S. investors may benefit from access to additional venues for trading futures on EU debt obligations. U.S. non-QIB traders may benefit from gaining access to futures on EU bonds. The EU may also benefit from an expanded market for its debt, which may lower transaction costs. However, these benefits may be limited to the extent that trading in futures on EU bonds remains primarily on FBOTs. For instance, the sovereign debt included in Rule 3a12-8 does not currently have corresponding futures trading on U.S. futures exchanges.
Under the proposed amendment, U.S. investors would be able to trade futures on EU debt obligations on U.S. futures exchanges in addition to FBOTs. In the absence of the proposed amendment, these futures are currently considered security futures and thus could only be traded on FBOTs, in accordance with and subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's 2009 Exemptive Order.
Trading on U.S. futures exchanges could spur changes to FBOTs, to the benefit of QIBs. The entry of U.S. exchanges into the futures market for EU bonds may increase exchange competition, which could lower costs for QIBs.
U.S. non-QIB traders would also be able to trade EU debt futures on U.S. futures exchanges or on FBOTs.
Access to futures on EU debt obligations would also allow non-QIB investors who currently use correlated instruments, such as Bund futures or other EU member state government bond futures, as proxy hedges for exposures to EU debt obligations to hedge those positions directly. Because a proxy hedge of this kind introduces basis risk (
In addition, greater participation by non-QIB traders could contribute to greater market depth and narrower bid-ask spreads, reducing transaction costs
More broadly, QIBs that treat debt obligations of the EU and the debt of Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states as substitutable instruments for euro interest-rate hedging, and that therefore hold positions in both types of futures, currently manage those positions under two different regulatory regimes. By bringing futures on EU debt obligations within the same framework that governs futures on the debt obligations of designated EU member states, the proposed amendment could reduce the operational friction arising from managing positions under two different regulatory regimes, for example, by enabling QIBs to manage both types of positions on U.S. futures exchanges.
The EU could benefit from lower borrowing costs if the proposed amendment spurs more trading in EU bonds. This could occur if increased access to the market for futures on EU debt obligations, or reduced transaction costs, made hedging EU bond exposures more viable. The increased ability of U.S. non-QIB traders to hedge could cause demand for EU bonds to increase in the secondary market, which could narrow bid-ask spreads and reduce the liquidity premium that investors require to hold EU debt obligations. Lower liquidity premiums may, in turn, lower borrowing costs in the primary market.
These benefits may be limited if there is no material increase in the number of market participants.
The proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8 could create indirect costs. If U.S. futures exchanges start trading futures on EU debt obligations, market surveillance could become more difficult because of coordinating surveillance across jurisdictions.
There is a possibility that greater speculative trading by U.S. retail investors could increase volatility in the market on EU debt obligations and the corresponding futures market.
If the number of trading venues for futures on EU debt obligations increases without a proportional increase in total participation and trading volume, order flow in those markets could become fragmented. Fragmentation could reduce liquidity within individual venues, increasing the adverse selection risk faced by liquidity providers. To offset that risk, liquidity providers may widen their bid-ask spreads, raising transaction costs for all participants in the market for futures on EU debt obligations.
A related but unique effect could arise in a different market: futures on the debt of Designated Foreign Governments that
Another potential cost of the rule is that, to the extent that futures on EU debt obligations start trading on U.S. futures exchanges, it may be more difficult to conduct cross-market surveillance. However, these costs associated with the proposed amendment may be limited to the extent that all trading on futures on EU debt obligations remained on current FBOTs and the proposed amendment did not result in changes in trading activity in the market for futures on EU debt obligations.
Because futures on EU debt obligations could be traded in both the U.S. and the EU under the proposed amendments, surveillance in the market for futures on EU debt obligations and the corresponding underlying markets could change. It may be more difficult to detect market manipulation spread across multiple jurisdictions. A trader may manipulate prices in the futures market in order to affect the underlying bond market. For example, a trader could engage in wash sales at a particular price in order to raise futures prices, then sell bonds in the secondary market at the time that the futures expire. This manipulation could take place on multiple futures exchanges across different jurisdictions. However, both the EU and the U.S. have rules requiring surveillance of futures markets and exchanges and the CFTC has existing data sharing agreements with FBOTs and MOUs it maintains with foreign regulators.
The proposed amendment could affect market efficiency in three respects: its effect on the informational efficiency of prices, its effect on the operational efficiency of managing hedging positions, and its effect on the allocation of trading activity across substitutable instruments.
With respect to informational efficiency, to the extent that the proposed amendment results in additional trading venues and a broader population of market participants in the markets for futures on EU bonds, it could contribute to price discovery in those markets.
Separately, if the proposed amendment were to fragment order flow across a larger number of venues without a corresponding increase in total trading activity, it could reduce rather than improve liquidity.
With respect to operational efficiency, the proposed amendment could reduce the costs that participants incur in executing a given hedging strategy, independent of any effect on price discovery. QIBs that hold positions in both futures on EU debt obligations and futures on the debt of Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states currently manage those positions under two different regulatory regimes; the proposed amendment could reduce the associated operational friction, including potential issues that might arise in cross-margining and collateral-management complexity, by bringing both types of futures within the same regulatory framework.
With respect to allocative efficiency, by applying the same regulatory treatment to futures on EU debt obligations as to futures on the debt of Designated Foreign Governments that are EU member states, the proposed amendment would allow market participants to choose between these instruments on the basis of their economic characteristics rather than on the basis of differing regulatory
The proposed amendment could increase competition among trading venues and intermediaries in the market for trading services in futures on EU debt obligations.
To the extent that U.S. futures exchanges elect to list futures on EU debt obligations, they would compete with existing FBOTs for order flow in the market for futures on EU debt obligations. This competition could affect the terms on which trading venues offer access to market participants, including exchange access fees, margin requirements, and other conditions of participation. Whether this competitive dynamic would materially affect venue access conditions is uncertain. If U.S. exchanges list futures on EU debt obligations, competition could also arise among clearing organizations, potentially affecting clearing fees and the availability of margin offsets for participants who clear multiple products at the same organization.
This competitive dynamic could produce effects even if trading in futures on EU debt obligations continues to occur primarily on FBOTs. The prospect of U.S. futures exchanges entering the market for futures on EU debt obligations could prompt incumbent FBOTs to respond competitively, for example by lowering access fees, offering other incentives to retain order flow, or offering a greater variety of futures products on the debt obligations of the EU.
Competition among venues could also affect the cost of intermediation. If trading venues compete for order flow by adjusting their access conditions or fee structures, intermediaries may respond by adjusting their own fee structures or by registering to trade on additional venues.
The proposed amendment could improve capital formation, although there is a limited possibility that it may reduce capital formation if there is an increase in fragmentation of order flow across multiple venues without a corresponding increase in trading volume.
To the extent that the proposed amendment reduces transaction costs and improves liquidity in markets for futures on EU debt obligations, it could support demand for EU debt in secondary trading markets.
However, this transmission mechanism involves several steps, each of which is uncertain, and the overall effect on EU capital formation may be limited. The proposed amendment could also affect capital formation through its effects on U.S. market participants. To the extent that the amendment reduces the cost of accessing markets for futures on EU debt obligations for QIBs, it could free up capital that might otherwise be absorbed by hedging costs, potentially making additional capital available for deployment in other markets, including through domestic reinvestment in U.S. capital markets.
If the proposed amendment were to fragment order flow across a larger number of venues without a corresponding increase in total trading activity, this could reduce liquidity and widen bid-ask spreads in the markets for futures on EU debt obligations, as discussed above.
As an alternative to the proposed amendment to Rule 3a12-8, the Commission could add the EU to Rule 3a12-8 while restricting futures trading on U.S. exchanges of the debt obligations of the EU to QIBs, thereby limiting the expansion of market access to the population already permitted to trade futures on EU debt obligations under the 2009 Exemptive Order. This would reduce the surveillance difficulties compared to the proposed amendment.
As another alternative to the proposed amendment, the Commission could rescind Rule 3a12-8 in its entirety. This would remove the exempted security designation from the debt of all Designated Foreign Governments currently listed in the Rule, making futures on those governments' debt subject to the same regulatory treatment as futures on EU debt obligations,
Non-QIB investors would be unable to trade the sovereign debt futures of those countries currently included under Rule 3a12-8. QIB investors could trade the futures through FBOTs.
Under the rescission alternative, the efficiency gains associated with broader investor participation in futures and sovereign debt markets from the proposed amendment would not be realized. A lack of non-QIB investor participation in futures markets could create futures markets with limited depth, leading to higher volatility.
Capital formation could be reduced relative to the proposed amendment. Without access to futures as hedging instruments, non-QIB investors may also reduce their participation in the corresponding sovereign debt markets,
As an alternative to the proposed amendment, the Commission could amend Rule 3a12-8 to designate the debt obligations of all 27 EU member states as “exempted securities.” Eleven EU member states are already designated exempted securities under the Rule.
This alternative could produce broader benefits than the proposed amendments by extending comparable treatment to the futures on the debt obligations of all EU member states. Potential benefits include more uniform regulatory treatment, allowing participants to choose instruments based on their economic characteristics rather than regulatory accessibility; simplified compliance and hedging, including reduced cross-margining, collateral complexity, and proxy-hedging basis risk; and extended access to hedging instruments for non-QIB investors under the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction rather than the QIB-only security-futures regime.
The costs could also be greater under this alternative because many of the additional sovereign-debt markets are relatively small and less liquid. At the end of 2024, for example, Estonia had approximately €9.3 billion in general government (Maastricht) debt and Malta approximately €10.6 billion,
The alternative would also encompass sovereigns with materially different credit profiles. The zero-percent risk-weight cited in support of the proposed amendments does not apply uniformly to all EU member states that are not currently Designated Foreign Governments.
Credit risk, however, is not unique to the sixteen additional member states. Some of the sovereigns which are currently Designated Foreign Governments, required official financial assistance during the euro-area crisis.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of this initial economic analysis, including whether the analysis has: (1) identified all benefits and costs, including all effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation; (2) given due consideration to each benefit and cost, including each effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation; and (3) identified and considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed new rules and rule amendments. We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments regarding the proposed amendment, our analysis of the potential effects of the proposed amendment, and other matters that may have an effect on the proposed amendment. We request that commenters identify sources of data and information as well as provide data and information to assist us in analyzing the economic consequences of the proposed amendment. We also are interested in comments on the qualitative benefits and costs we have identified and any benefits and costs we may have overlooked. In addition to our general request for comments on the economic analysis associated with the proposed rules and proposed amendments, we request specific comment on certain aspects of the proposal:
Q18. What do commenters believe the impact of amending the Rule would be on U.S. investors? On which FBOTs are EU futures primarily traded? How much of the volume is by U.S. traders? How much of the volume is by foreign traders, and what share of these foreign traders are retail traders?
Q19. What do commenters believe the impact of amending the Rule would be on the underlying market for debt obligations of the EU? What volume of EU debt obligations are traded in the U.S.? What volume of EU debt obligations are held by U.S. institutional investors, and what is their overall share of the bonds held? How active are U.S. institutional investors in the primary and secondary EU bond markets? How active are retail traders in the secondary EU bond market?
Q20. Would any of the alternatives to amending the Rule be more beneficial to the market and market participants rather than the proposed amendment? In addition, are there costs that the Commission has not considered as part of these alternatives?
Q21. Are there any barriers that would prevent FBOTs from competing to attract order flow from U.S. exchanges due to the proposed amendment? Would certain FBOTs set rules such that U.S. traders would need to use an intermediary to trade futures on EU debt obligations?
Q22. Should retail trading in the options market be compared to retail trading in futures markets? Are there aspects of futures markets, and in particular the market for futures on EU debt obligations, that are not comparable to options markets?
Q23. How many intermediaries registered in the U.S. currently have access to FBOTs? Are there specific incentives that these intermediaries would offer in order to attract order flow in the market for futures on EU debt obligations? Are there specific incentives that FBOTs would offer in order to attract order flow in the market for futures on EU debt obligations?
Q24. How do introducing brokers and other intermediaries distinguish between QIBs and non-QIB customers?
Q25. What are the reasons for a lack of uptake on U.S. futures exchanges in sovereign debt futures exempted under Rule 3a12-8?
Q26. Would non-QIB investors mostly consist of non-QIBs who currently trade other futures products, such as EU member state futures products, under Rule 3a12-8? What is the current breakdown of types of traders by euro volume in EU member state futures under Rule 3a12-8?
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed amendment to the Rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or other collections of information which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (“RFA”) requires the Commission, when issuing a rulemaking proposal, to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities,
The Commission encourages written comments on the certification. The Commission solicits comment as to whether the proposed rule could have an effect on small entities that has not been considered. The Commission asks that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small entities and
For purposes of Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act),
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or innovation.
To help inform OMB's determination as to whether any final rule that results from the proposal would be a “major rule,” the Commission solicits comment and data on:
• The potential effect on the U.S. economy on an annual basis;
• Any potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and
• Any potential effect on competition, investment, or innovation.
Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review. This action, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The amendment to Rule 3a12-8 is being proposed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78a
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78j-4, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4, 78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78dd, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 1681w(a)(1), 6801-6809, 6825, 7201
Section 240.3a12-8 also issued under 15 U.S.C. 78a
(a) * * *
(1) The term
(A) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
(B) Canada;
(C) Japan;
(D) The Commonwealth of Australia;
(E) The Republic of France;
(F) New Zealand;
(G) The Republic of Austria;
(H) The Kingdom of Denmark;
(I) The Republic of Finland;
(J) The Kingdom of the Netherlands;
(K) Switzerland;
(L) The Federal Republic of Germany;
(M) The Republic of Ireland;
(N) The Republic of Italy;
(O) The Kingdom of Spain;
(P) The United Mexican States;
(Q) The Federative Republic of Brazil;
(R) The Republic of Argentina;
(S) The Republic of Venezuela;
(T) The Kingdom of Belgium; or
(U) The Kingdom of Sweden.
(2) * * *
(3) The term
By the Commission.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is considering amending its regulations to give CBP greater visibility into the supply chains of goods imported into the United States. CBP is seeking comments on new requirements enhancing visibility into the parties involved in the importation of goods; integrating innovative technical solutions for the tracing of supply chains of those goods; and collecting foreign export documentation that foreign exporters are required to submit to the foreign customs authority prior to the exportation of those goods to the United States. With these proposals, CBP seeks to more effectively detect and interdict illicit importations, especially those that are illegally transshipped to evade compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws.
Comments must be received on or before December 1, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For questions regarding the identification of parties involved with imported goods and the collection of foreign export documentation, contact Brandon Lord, Executive Director, Trade Programs, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Salvatore Ingrassia, Acting Executive Director, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 325-4369 or by email at
Interested persons are invited to participate in this potential rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
On June 3, 2026, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14411 entitled “Strengthening Customs Enforcement.”
The E.O. calls for customs reform to remedy systemic inefficiencies, loopholes, insufficient enforcement mechanisms, and outdated processes that have created opportunities for malign actors to evade Federal law. Section 3 of the E.O. directs the establishment of heightened import disclosure requirements. In particular, Section 3(a) of the E.O. instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to take steps to require the disclosure of certain foreign tax and global business identifiers, and detailed information about the supply chain and production methods of goods imported into the United States. Moreover, Section 3(b) of the E.O. directs the Secretary to take steps to mandate the submission of “any documentation or information that the foreign exporter was required to submit to the foreign customs administration prior to exporting to the United States.” The E.O. also directs CBP to leverage the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (CTPAT) program in a variety of ways to strengthen customs enforcement.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) component responsible for enforcing compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws. Customs enforcement is essential to the national security of the United States. Ensuring compliance with U.S. customs and trade laws protects Americans from dangerous products and reinforces the strength of the American economy. In addition to more specific statutory authority described below, related to, among other things, entry, manifest, and recordkeeping, the Secretary,
All merchandise imported into the customs territory of the United States is subject to entry and clearance procedures, unless excepted. 19 CFR 141.4. These procedures ensure the proper appraisement, valuation, and tariff classification of the merchandise for the purpose of collecting the lawful amount of duties owed, as well as compliance with all other laws and regulations administered and enforced by CBP, including health and safety requirements imposed by other government agencies. Different types of entry procedures are used for the entry and clearance of merchandise depending upon its value and other relevant criteria.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485, CBP has broad authority to require documentation and information necessary to determine whether the merchandise can be released from CBP custody, assess duties, collect accurate statistics, and determine whether any other applicable requirement of law has been met. 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(1). Further, under 19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(A), CBP has authority to prescribe by regulation the time period and manner for filing such documentation and information. Informal entry procedures are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1498(a)(1)(A) for shipments of merchandise valued at $2,500 or less, and may incorporate formal entry procedures appearing in 19 U.S.C. 1484 and 1485. 19 U.S.C. 1498(b). Generally, informal entry procedures are less burdensome and complex than formal entry procedures. CBP has established entry procedures in 19 CFR parts 141, 142, and 143. In particular, 19 CFR 141.5 requires that entry be filed within 15 calendar days after landing from a vessel, aircraft or vehicle, or after arrival at the port of destination in the case of merchandise transported in bond.
In addition to these entry requirements imposed on the importer of merchandise, under 19 U.S.C. 1431, CBP has imposed requirements on carriers of merchandise. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1431(b), carriers are required to submit a manifest to CBP that contains information concerning cargo they are transporting to the United States. Under 19 U.S.C. 1431(d), among other things,
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1508, all parties who file an entry or declaration, transport or store merchandise carried or held under bond, file drawback claims, or knowingly cause an importation, or transportation or storage of merchandise carried or held under bond are subject to customs recordkeeping requirements.
The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 1909 (2006), 6 U.S.C. 961
CBP encourages participation in this program by providing benefits to participants meeting or exceeding the CTPAT program requirements. An individual or company
In the sections below, CBP has laid out proposals for implementing Section 3 of the E.O. These proposals are followed by questions as to which CBP is seeking more information. The comments received in response to this ANPRM will be used, potentially, to draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would propose regulations to implement these proposals, or other suggested proposals received in response to this ANPRM. All comments are welcome, and the most useful comments are those that answer not only the specific questions posed in this notice, but also provide reasons and data in support of any views provided by the commenter, describe current practices and technology in use to address issues of supply chain visibility, and address how the proposals outlined in this ANPRM would affect them, their company, and their clientele. For each of these proposals, consider whether the new requirements should be phased in by entry type, commodity (including whether special consideration is warranted for critical medical products and their key inputs), country, or mode of transportation; whether different implementation timelines should apply to small entities, foreign importers, CTPAT participants, or high-volume filers; whether any of the proposals are suited to voluntary test programs; and what implementation period would be necessary for affected parties to comply with the proposal.
CBP is also interested in receiving comments that describe what respondents believe the effect the proposals would have on compliance with existing legal and regulatory requirements for importation. In addition, CBP is interested in the potential costs and benefits related to these proposals. For all numerical and quantitative responses, please provide CBP with sufficient information to recreate those calculations. Finally, in your comments, please refer to the specific question number(s) that you are addressing within the various portions of your submission.
As noted above, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1484, CBP is authorized to require documentation necessary to determine admissibility, assess duties, collect accurate statistics, and “determine whether any other applicable requirement of law (other than a requirement relating to release from customs custody) is met.” 19 U.S.C.
• Export Declarations made by the foreign exporter to the foreign customs authority. This may show declared value, classification, and quantity.
• Commercial Invoices showing the transaction value declared to the foreign customs authority.
• Packing Lists to verify the contents, weight, and packaging of the shipment.
• Certificates of Origin submitted to the foreign customs authority substantiating the origin of the goods.
• Export Licenses or Permits required for the export of controlled, restricted, or dual-use goods.
• Transport Documents (
CBP is seeking information on the full breadth of such documentation as well as when and how it should be required for submission.
Importers of record provide the data element known as the manufacturer or shipper identification code (MID) at the time of filing entry summary.
In recognition of the challenges associated with the MID, as discussed above, in 2022, CBP established a voluntary National Customs Automation Program Test
• Manufacturer (or supplier)—The party that last manufactures, assembles, produces, or grows the goods or the party supplying the finished goods in the country from which the goods are leaving for the United States.
• Shipper—The party that enters into a contract for carriage with, and arranges for delivery of the goods to, a carrier or transport intermediary for transportation to the United States.
• Seller—The last known party by whom the goods are sold or agreed to be sold. If the goods are to be imported otherwise than in pursuance of a purchase, the owner of the goods must be provided.
Test participants could also elect to transmit GBIs identifying the exporter, distributor, or packager.
The ongoing GBI test is intended to determine whether GBIs offer more pertinent information regarding the entities with which they are associated and their supply chains (
Illegal transshipment, the practice of routing goods through a third country to obscure or misrepresent their true country of origin, deprives the U.S. government of lawful revenue and threatens U.S. economic security. To combat such evasion, CBP has intensified its enforcement efforts, including evaluating artificial intelligence (AI)-driven solutions for pinpointing illegal transshipment risk. CBP seeks to leverage supply chain traceability solutions (which are widely employed by the private sector today) to make rapid and resource-efficient decisions about illegal transshipment before goods arrive at, or are released from, the U.S. border. It is also essential for CBP to encourage the private sector to incorporate awareness of national security issues and geopolitical risk into their supply chain decision-making.
As noted above, CTPAT is a voluntary program designed to build cooperative relationships between government and business to strengthen and improve the security of the international supply chain. CBP is interested in innovative supply chain tracing technologies that CTPAT partners can use to demonstrate the integrity of their supply chains, and their continuous execution of the MSC.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This ANPRM is a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the specific requirements of that order.
In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain exceptions. This ANPRM is being issued in accordance with DHS Delegation 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.
Rodney S. Scott, Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to Susan S. Thomas, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade, for purposes of publication in the
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Economic Research Service (ERS) to request an extension of a currently approved information collection titled “Data Security Requirements for Accessing Confidential Data.” ERS plans to collect information from the public to fulfill its data security requirements when providing access to restricted use data for the purpose of evidence building. ERS's data security agreements and other paperwork along with the corresponding security protocols allow ERS to maintain careful controls on confidentiality and privacy, as required by law.
Written comments on this notice must be received by November 2, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to
Data collected, accessed, or acquired by statistical agencies and units is vital for developing evidence on conditions, characteristics, and behaviors of the public and on the operations and outcomes of public programs and policies. This evidence can benefit the stakeholders in the programs, the broader public, as well as policymakers and program managers at the local, State, Tribal, and National levels. The many benefits of access to data for evidence building notwithstanding, ERS is required by law to maintain careful controls that allow it to minimize disclosure risk while protecting confidentiality and privacy.
The fulfillment of ERS's data security requirements places a degree of burden on the public, which is outlined below.
The SAP Portal is a web-based application for the public to request access to confidential data assets from federal statistical agencies and units. The objective of the SAP Portal is to increase public access to confidential data for the purposes of evidence building and reduce the burden of applying for confidential data. Once an individual's application in the SAP Portal has received a positive determination, the data-owning agency(ies) or unit(s) will begin the process of collecting information to fulfill their data security requirements.
The paragraphs below outline the SAP Policy, the steps to complete an application through the SAP Portal, and the process for agencies to collect information fulfilling their data security requirements.
At the recommendation of the ICSP, the SAP Policy establishes the SAP to be implemented by statistical agencies and units and incorporates directives from the Evidence Act. The policy is intended to provide guidance as to the application and review processes using the SAP Portal, setting forth clear standards that enable statistical agencies and units to implement a common application form and a uniform review process. The SAP Policy renewal was submitted to the public for comment in June 2025 (90 FR 25380). The renewal policy was approved and has a current expiration date of 12-31-2028.
The SAP Portal is an application interface connecting applicants seeking data with a catalog of data assets owned by the federal statistical agencies and units. The SAP Portal is not a new data repository or warehouse; confidential data assets will continue to be stored in secure data access facilities owned and hosted by the federal statistical agencies and units. The SAP Portal will provide a streamlined application process across agencies, reducing redundancies in the application process. This single SAP Portal will improve the process for applicants, tracking and communicating the application process throughout its lifecycle. This reduces redundancies and burden on applicants that request access to data from multiple agencies. The SAP Portal will automate key tasks to save resources and time and will bring agencies into compliance with the Evidence Act statutory requirements.
Individuals begin the process of accessing restricted use data by discovering confidential data assets through the SAP data catalog, maintained by federal statistical agencies at
While statistical agencies and units shall endeavor to include metadata in the SAP data catalog on all confidential
Individuals who have identified and wish to access confidential data assets will be able to apply for access through the SAP Portal. Applicants must create an account and follow all steps to complete the application. Applicants begin by entering their personal, contact, and institutional information, as well as the personal, contact, and institutional information of all individuals on their research team. Applicants proceed to provide summary information about their proposed project, to include project title, duration, funding, timeline, and other details including the data asset(s) they are requesting and any proposed linkages to data not listed in the SAP data catalog, including non-federal data sources. Applicants then proceed to enter detailed information regarding their proposed project, including a project abstract, research question(s), literature review, project scope, research methodology, project products, and anticipated output. Applicants must demonstrate a need for confidential data, outlining why their research question cannot be answered using publicly available information.
Upon submission of their application, applicants will receive a notification that their application has been received and is under review by the data owning agency or agencies (in the event where data assets are requested from multiple agencies). At this point, applicants will also be notified that application approval does not alone grant access to confidential data, and that, if approved, applicants must comply with the data-owning agency's security requirements outside of the SAP Portal.
In accordance with the Evidence Act and the direction of the ICSP, agencies will approve or reject an application within a prompt timeframe. In some cases, agencies may determine that additional clarity, information, or modification is needed and request the applicant to “revise and resubmit” their application.
Data discovery, the SAP application process, and the submission for review are planned to take place within the web-based SAP Portal. As noted above, the renewal notice to collect information through the SAP Portal has been published separately (90 FR 25380).
In the event of a positive determination, the applicant will be notified that their proposal has been accepted. The positive or final adverse determination concludes the SAP Portal process. In the instance of a positive determination, the data-owning agency (or agencies) will contact the applicant to provide instructions on the agency's security requirements that must be completed to gain access to the confidential data. The completion and submission of the agency's security requirements will take place outside of the SAP Portal.
In the instance of a positive determination for an application requesting access to an ERS confidential data asset, ERS will contact the applicant(s) to initiate the process of collecting information to fulfill their security requirements. These include additional requirements necessary for the statistical agency or unit to place the applicant(s) in a trusted category that may include the applicant's successful completion of identity verification, confidentiality training, nondisclosure, inspection of the site the confidential data will be accessed, and data use agreements.
ERS's data security requirements include the collection of the following information:
•
• Completion of form
• Completion of
• Completion of
• If a researcher wishes to add a new researcher to their previously approved project, they can fill out the
Specifically, researchers will be required to complete the OF-306 (Declaration for Federal Employment) to support onboarding into USDA's human capital management system. This step is necessary to establish a formal relationship between ERS and the researcher and to ensure compliance with federal identity verification and personnel tracking requirements. The OF-306 collects administrative PII such as Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, sex, and citizenship. This information will be submitted directly to REE Onboarding and will not be retained or processed by ERS. The collection and maintenance of this data are governed by USDA's Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) OCFO/NFC-1—Systems for Personnel, Payroll, and Time & Attendance (89 FR 5481, January 29, 2024). The OF-306 is
The expected number of applications in the SAP Portal that receive a positive determination from ERS in a given year may vary. Overall, per year, ERS estimates it will collect data security information for 20 application submissions that received a positive determination within the SAP Portal. ERS estimates that the total burden for the collection of information for data security requirements over the course of the three-year OMB clearance will be about 110 hours and, as a result, an average annual burden of 37 hours.
Below we provide projected average estimates for the next three years:
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, FSIS is announcing its intention to request renewal of the approved information collection regarding qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by FSIS. There are no changes to the information collection. The current approval will expire on May 31, 2027.
Submit comments on or before November 2, 2026.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.
FSIS is requesting renewal of the approved information collection regarding qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback on service delivery by FSIS. There are no changes to the existing information collection. The approval for this information collection will expire on May 31, 2027.
The proposed information collection provides a means for FSIS to obtain qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner, consistent with the Agency's commitment to improving service delivery.
“Qualitative feedback,” refers to information that provides insights into perceptions and opinions but is not a statistical survey that yields quantitative results that can be generalized to the population studied. This feedback helps FSIS understand customer or stakeholder experiences and expectations, identify early concerns with service delivery, and highlight areas where better communication or operational changes may improve services. This collection supports ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders and directly informs improvements in program management.
The solicitation of qualitative feedback will target topics such as timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the
FSIS will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collection is voluntary.
• The collection is low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden hours per respondent) and is low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
• The collection is non-controversial and does not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
• The collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have had experience with the program, or who may have experience with the program in the near future.
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained; as a general matter, this information collection will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not involve questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters that are commonly considered private.
• Information gathered is intended for internal use to support general service improvement and program management; if released, FSIS would identify the qualitative nature of the information.
• Information gathered will not be used to substantially inform policy decisions.
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information and will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable or generalizable results.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; 202-720-5046.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
The available information ranges from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a fee of $325 to be charged for the 2027 tariff-rate quota (TRQ) year for each license issued to a person or firm by the Department of Agriculture authorizing the importation of certain dairy articles, which are subject to tariff-rate quotas set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States.
September 2, 2026.
Elizabeth Riley, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at (202) 720-2778; or by email at:
The Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Import Licensing Regulation promulgated by the Department of Agriculture and codified at 7 CFR 6.206.36 provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles that are subject to TRQs set forth in the HTS. Those dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the in-quota TRQ tariff-rates by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The use of such licenses is monitored by the Import Program within the Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) provides that a fee will be charged for each license issued to a person or firm by the Licensing Authority to defray the Department of Agriculture's costs of administering the licensing system under this regulation.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.33(a) also provides that the Licensing Authority will announce the annual fee for each license and that such fee will be set out in a notice to be published in the
The total cost to the Department of Agriculture of administering the licensing system for 2027 has been estimated to be $631,516.00 and the estimated number of licenses expected to be issued is 1,950. Of the total cost, $386,288.00 represents staff and supervisory costs directly related to administering the licensing system, and $245,228.00 represents other miscellaneous costs, including travel, publications, and Automatic Data Processing (ADP) system support.
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the fee for each license issued to a person or firm for the 2027 calendar year, in accordance with 7 CFR 6.33, will be $325 per license.
Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.
This notice lists the updated quantity-based trigger levels for products which may be subject to additional import duties under the safeguard provisions of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. This notice also includes the relevant period applicable for the trigger levels on each of the listed products.
This notice is applicable on September 2, 2026.
Multilateral Affairs Division, Trade Policy and Geographic Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1070, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1070.
USDA Sugar Import Program,
Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture provides that additional import duties may be imposed on imports of products subject to tariffication as a result of the Uruguay Round, if certain conditions are met. The agreement permits additional duties to be charged if the price of an individual shipment of imported products falls below the average price for similar goods imported during the years 1986-88 by a specified percentage. It also permits additional duties when the volume of imports of that product exceeds the sum of (1) a base trigger level multiplied by the average of the last three years of available import data and (2) the change in yearly consumption in the most recent year for which data are available (provided that the final trigger level is not less than 105 percent of the three-year import average). The base trigger level is set at 105, 110, or 125 percent of the three-year import average, depending on the percentage of domestic consumption that is represented by imports. These additional duties may not be imposed on quantities for which minimum or current access commitments were made during the Uruguay Round negotiations, and only one type of safeguard, price or quantity, may be applied at any given time to an article.
Section 405 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires that the President cause to be published in the
Additional information on the products subject to safeguards and the additional duties which may apply can be found in subchapter IV of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2024) and in the Secretary of Agriculture's Notice of Uruguay Round Agricultural Safeguard Trigger Levels, published in the
Issued at Washington, DC.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the Foreign Agricultural Service's intention to request an extension of a currently approved information collection relating to the issuance of certificates of quota eligibility (CQEs) required to enter sugar and sugar-containing products under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) into the United States.
Comments on this notice must be received by no later than November 2, 2026. to be assured of consideration.
You may send comments, identified by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0551-0014, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Pursuant to 15 CFR part 2011, Allocation of Tariff-Rate Quota on Imported Sugars, Syrups, and Molasses, Subpart A—Certificate of Quota Eligibility, CQEs are issued to foreign countries that have been allocated a share of the WTO sugar TRQ. This regulation provides for the issuance of CQEs by the Secretary of Agriculture and in general prohibits sugar entered under the WTO TRQ from being imported into the United States or withdrawn from a warehouse for consumption at the in-quota duty rates unless such sugar is accompanied by a valid CQE.
In addition, CQEs are required for the import of sugar into the United States under the sugar TRQs established under the U.S.—Colombia, U.S.—Panama, and U.S.—Peru Trade Promotion Agreements, as set forth in 19 U.S.C. 3805.
CQEs for the aforementioned WTO and free trade agreement (FTA) sugar TRQs are distributed to foreign countries by the Senior Director of the Multilateral Affairs Division, Foreign Agriculture Service, or designee. The distribution of CQEs is in such amounts and at such times as the Senior Director determines are appropriate to enable the foreign country to fill its quota allocation for such quota period in a reasonable manner, taking into account harvesting periods, U.S. import requirements, and other relevant factors. The information required to be collected on the CQE is used to monitor and control the imports of products subject to the WTO and FTA sugar TRQs. A valid CQE, duly executed and issued by the Certifying Authority of the foreign country, is required for eligibility to enter the products into U.S. customs territory under the TRQs.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Kenneth Vernon, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be available without change, including any personal information provided, for inspection online at
Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for OMB approval.
Persons with disabilities who require an alternative means for communication of information should contact FAS-
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the transfer of amounts for certain dairy articles from the historical license category (Appendix 1) to the lottery
[Insert date of publication in the
Elizabeth Riley, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at (202) 7202778; or by email at:
The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.36 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.
Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Imports Program, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.
The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states that whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is permanently surrendered, revoked by the Licensing Authority, or not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, then the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2. Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published by notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Massachusetts Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 27, requesting subzone status for the facility of Persimmon Technologies Corporation, located in Bedford, Massachusetts. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 28, 2026.
The proposed subzone (3.27 acres) is located at 35 Crosby Road, Bedford, Massachusetts. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 27.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Juanita Chen of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain steel nails (nails) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable September 2, 2026.
Preston Cox, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (240) 956-8630.
On July 14, 2015, Commerce published the
On June 1, 2026, Commerce received an adequate substantive response from Mid Continent within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).
The merchandise covered by the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidization and the countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), 771(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on welded line pipe from the People's Republic of Korea (Korea) and the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Applicable September 2, 2026.
Grant Fuller, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6172.
On December 1, 2015, Commerce published the
On May 18, 2026, Commerce received a timely and complete notice of intent to participate in the sunset review for domestic interested parties
On June 1, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i), the domestic interested parties filed a timely and adequate substantive response.
The product covered by these
A complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of these
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing the results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 771(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024. The review covers one producer and exporter of subject merchandise, OCTAL SAOC FZC (OCTAL).
Applicable September 2, 2026.
Dylan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1197.
On May 18, 2026, Commerce published the
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines a “ministerial error” as “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which {Commerce} considers ministerial.”
Commerce's regulations stipulate that agency will disclose its calculations to parties to the proceeding and that those parties may submit comments concerning any ministerial error in such calculations.
The petitioners allege that instead of recalculating inventory carrying costs using costs from OCTAL's most recent cost database, as Commerce intended, it set U.S. inventory carrying costs for certain sales equal to an incorrect value.
We agree with the petitioners. In the
As a result of correcting the ministerial error described above, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period, May 1, 2023, through April 30, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these amended final results of review to the interested parties within five days after the date of any public announcement of the amended final results of review or, if there is no public announcement of the amended final results of review, within five days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review where an importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or
Pursuant to a refinement to Commerce's assessment practice, where sales of subject merchandise that was produced or exported by OCTAL were not reported in the U.S. sales data, but the merchandise was entered for consumption into the United States during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of such merchandise at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice of the amended final results of review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of review and this notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a virtual public meeting of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC). IMDCC members will discuss Federal marine debris activities, with a particular emphasis on the topics identified in the
The virtual public meeting will be held on September 29, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).
The meeting will be held virtually using Google Meet.
Attendance will be limited to the first 500 individuals to join the virtual meeting room. Refer to the IMDCC website at
Tacey Hicks, Executive Secretariat, IMDCC, Marine Debris Program; Phone 707-217-2852; Email
The IMDCC is a multi-agency body responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program of marine debris research and activities among Federal agencies, in cooperation and coordination with non-governmental organizations, industry, academia, States, Tribes, and other nations, as appropriate. Representatives meet to share information, assess and promote best management practices, and coordinate the Federal Government's efforts to address marine debris.
The Marine Debris Act establishes the IMDCC (33 U.S.C. 1954). The IMDCC submits biennial progress reports to Congress with updates on activities, achievements, strategies, and recommendations. NOAA serves as the Chairperson of the IMDCC.
The meeting will be open to public attendance on September 29, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. There will not be a public comment period. The meeting will not be recorded.
The open meeting will include a presentation from the Environmental Protection Agency and the NOAA Marine Debris Program on established monitoring protocols including the Escaped Trash Assessment Protocol (ETAP) and the Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project (MDMAP), respectively. The Marine Debris Foundation will also present on relevant programmatic updates. The agenda topics described are subject to change. The latest version of the agenda will be posted at
The meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Closed captioning will be available. Requests for other auxiliary aids should be directed to Tacey Hicks, Executive Secretariat at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; transfer and issuance of incidental take permit.
On August 4, 2020, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the NMFS issued an incidental take permit (ITP) to Barney Davis, LLC, authorizing take of threatened green sea turtles (
This ITP is effective through August 31, 2030.
The ITP, conservation plan, and transfer agreement, along with other related documents, are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at
NMFS Office of Protected Resources, Kim Corcoran at
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the `taking' of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides a mechanism for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are located in 50 CFR 222.307.
Section 222.305(a), as revised, allows for the transferability of permits issued under 50 CFR parts 222, 223, and 224 through a joint submission by the permittee and the proposed transferee provided that NMFS determines in writing that the proposed transferee: (1) meets all qualifications for holding a permit; (2) has provided adequate written assurances that it will provide sufficient funding for the conservation plan or other agreement or plan associated with the permit and will implement the relevant terms and conditions of the permit, including any outstanding minimization and mitigation requirements; and (3) has provided such other information as NMFS determines is relevant to process the transfer.
NMFS issued an ITP to Barney Davis, LLC, on August 4, 2020, for the incidental take of threatened green sea turtles (
On November 19, 2024, Barney Davis, LLC and CPS Energy submitted a joint request to transfer ITP No. 21316 from Barney Davis, LLC to CPS Energy. This transfer request was due to CPS Energy's acquisition of ownership and operational control of the Center on December 4, 2024. CPS Energy has formally confirmed that it meets all statutory and regulatory qualifications for holding the ITP, as outlined in 50 CFR parts 222. This includes providing written assurance of sufficient funding for the permit's associated Conservation Plan and a commitment to implement the permit's relevant terms and conditions, including any minimization and mitigation requirements, upon acquisition of the Center. NMFS reviewed and accepted the signed
Notice is hereby given that, on April 23, 2026, as authorized by the provisions of the ESA, the NMFS issued ITP (No. 21316) to CPS Energy subject to certain conditions set forth therein.
This notice is provided by NMFS under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of Response and Restoration (ORR), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of indirect cost rates for the Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program for fiscal year 2021.
NOAA's Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP) is announcing new indirect cost rates on the recovery of indirect costs for its component organizations involved in natural resource damage assessment and restoration activities for fiscal year (FY) 2021. The indirect cost rates for this fiscal year and date of implementation are provided in this notice. More information on these rates and the DARRP policy can be found at the DARRP website at
Tony Penn, Acting Deputy Director, NOAA Office of Response and Restoration, by phone at 301-873-2537 or by email at
The mission of the DARRP is to restore natural resource injuries caused by releases of hazardous substances or oil under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601
Consistent with Federal accounting requirements, the DARRP is required to account for and report the full costs of its programs and activities. Further, the DARRP is authorized by law to recover reasonable costs of damage assessment and restoration activities under CERCLA, OPA, and the NMSA. Within the constraints of these legal provisions and their regulatory applications, the DARRP has the discretion to develop indirect cost rates for its component organizations and formulate policies on the recovery of indirect cost rates subject to its requirements.
In December 1998, the DARRP hired the public accounting firm Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered (R&M) to: evaluate the DARRP cost accounting system and allocation practices; recommend the appropriate indirect cost allocation methodology; and determine the indirect cost rates for the three organizations that comprise the DARRP. A
R&M continued its assessment of DARRP's indirect cost rate system and structure for FYs 2000 and 2001. A second
In October 2002, DARRP hired the accounting firm of Cotton and Company LLP (Cotton) to review and certify DARRP costs incurred on cases for purposes of cost recovery and to develop indirect rates for FY2002 and subsequent years. As in the prior years, Cotton concluded that the cost accounting system and allocation practices of the DARRP component organizations are consistent with Federal accounting requirements. Consistent with R&M's previous analyses, Cotton also determined that the most appropriate indirect allocation method continues to be the Direct Labor Cost Base for all three DARRP component organizations. The Direct Labor Cost Base is computed by allocating total indirect cost over the sum of direct labor dollars, plus the application of NOAA's leave surcharge and benefits rates to direct labor. Direct labor costs for contractors from ERT, Inc. (ERT), Freestone Environmental Services, Inc. (Freestone), and Genwest Systems, Inc. (Genwest) were included in the direct labor base because Cotton determined that these costs have the same relationship to the indirect cost pool as NOAA direct labor costs. ERT, Freestone, and Genwest provided on-site support to the DARRP in the areas of injury assessment, natural resource economics, restoration planning and implementation, and policy analysis. Subsequent notices have been published in the
Empirical Concepts developed the DARRP indirect rates for FY2016 through FY 2020. Empirical reaffirmed that the Direct Labor Cost Base is the most appropriate indirect allocation method for the development of the FY 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 indirect cost rates. The
Empirical Concepts developed the DARRP indirect rates for FY2021 and reaffirmed the Direct Labor Cost Base as the most appropriate indirect allocation for the development of the FY2021 indirect cost rates. Lynker replaced Freestone Environmental Services, Inc., but had the same contract labor relationship with DARRP.
The DARRP will apply the indirect cost rates for FY2021 as recommended by Empirical Concepts for each of the DARRP component organizations as provided in the following table:
The FY2021 rates will be applied to all damage assessment and restoration case costs incurred between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021 effective October 1, 2026. DARRP will use the FY2021 indirect cost rates for future fiscal years, beginning with FY2021, until subsequent year-specific rates can be developed.
For cases that have settled and for cost claims paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, the DARRP will not re-open any resolved matters for the purpose of applying the revised rates in this policy for these fiscal years. For cases not settled and cost claims not paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, costs will be recalculated using the revised rates in this policy for these fiscal years. Where a responsible party has agreed to pay costs using previous year's indirect rates, but has not yet made the payment because the settlement documents are not finalized, the costs will not be recalculated.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Charter Halibut Management Committee will meet September 30, 2026.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Alaska Time.
The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through the link at
Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone; 907-271-2809; email:
The Charter Halibut Management Committee will meet to review the Charter Halibut Permit discussion paper. The committee will open with introductions, followed by a review of the discussion paper. Public testimony will then be taken at the discretion of the chair, and the meeting will conclude with other business and upcoming meetings. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials,
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted prior to the meeting and should be submitted electronically to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has been issued an incidental take permit (ITP) for the incidental take of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed sea turtles associated with the otherwise lawful fisheries-independent gill net survey activities within Texas bays and estuaries.
The ITP and other related documents are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at
Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8453,
Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. NMFS may issue permits, under limited circumstances, to take listed species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provides a mechanism for authorizing incidental take of listed species. NMFS regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are located at 50 CFR 222.307.
The following species are included in this permit:
Kemp's ridley (
North Atlantic distinct population segments (DPS) of green (
On July 24, 2024, TPWD submitted an initial full draft application and Conservation Plan requesting take of ESA-listed species of sea turtles associated with their otherwise lawful fisheries-independent gill net surveys within Texas bays and estuaries as well as a small portion of Sabine Lake, LA. The Conservation Plan is designed to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of sea turtle entanglements incidental to these surveys to the maximum extent practicable. Following further discussion with NMFS, TPWD submitted revised draft applications and associated Conservation Plans on May 19, 2025, December 22, 2025, and February 13, 2026. NMFS deemed the application and Conservation Plan adequate and complete on February 26, 2026. On March 17, 2026, we published a notice of receipt (91 FR 12759) of TPWD's application and Conservation Plan from TPWD, which was made available for a 30-day public comment period. NMFS received 14 public comments on TPWD's ITP application and Conservation Plan. None were substantive, but most were in support of NMFS issuing an ITP to TPWD.
Total authorized take of sea turtle species for the 10-year ITP duration is based on historical data from TPWD's fisheries-independent gill net surveys. Incidental take of green sea turtles is authorized as cumulative take over a 3-year rolling period across the full 10 year permit duration. Incidental take of loggerhead, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles is authorized across the 10-year ITP duration.
NMFS has issued the requested ITP under the authority of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
As part of their Conservation Plan, TPWD will implement measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate take of ESA-listed sea turtle species incidental to fishery-independent gill net surveys. These measures include: constraining the sampling season to two 10-week seasons (fall and spring); identify hot spot grids (1-minute latitude by 1-minute latitude square grids where gill nets can be set and sampled in Texas bays and estuaries) to implement additional species protections such as the “last in/first out” strategy to reduce gill net soak times; identifying and removing sampling grid areas from future surveys after one endangered species entanglement occurs in that grid; implementing net configurations, such as reducing net slack, and marker buoy attachment to improve visibility for monitoring entanglements and reducing the potential for entanglements; observing before and during deployment periods for a total of 30 minutes; following the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network protocols and appropriate release and resuscitation protocols upon discovery of an entangled sea turtle; conducting surveys on “best” available weather days for gill net deployment; and ensuring continuous net repair to eliminate holes larger than 6 inch (15.24 centimeter) stretched mesh.
TPWD provided NMFS with assurances that adequate funding exists to support its Conservation Plan, including funds to support mitigation activities (cold stunning recovery activities, shrimp fishery management and law enforcement, and habitat protection within Texas state bays and estuaries) throughout the duration of the permit. The Conservation Plan also includes outreach, education, and a debris removal program, funded through Texas state appropriations and supplemented by other sources such as Natural Resource Disaster Assessment and Sport Fish Restoration, as funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with regular reporting requirements.
Please refer to TPWD's ITP application and Conservation Plan, which can be found at
Issuance criteria are described in ESA section 10(a)(2)(B) and associated implementing regulations (50 CFR 222.307(c)(2)). Under section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, NMFS shall issue the requested ITP, if NMFS finds that the following criteria are met:
(i) The taking will be incidental;
(ii) The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, monitor, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of such taking;
(iii) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild;
(iv) The applicant has amended the Conservation Plan to include any measures (not originally proposed by the applicant) that the Assistant Administrator determines are necessary or appropriate; and
(v) There are adequate assurances that the Conservation Plan will be funded and implemented, including any measures required by the Assistant Administrator.
NMFS has determined that TPWD meets the criteria for the issuance of an ITP, and as such, NMFS has issued an ITP to TPWD for the incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles associated with the otherwise lawful fisheries-independent gill net survey activities within Texas bays and estuaries. Unless modified, suspended, or revoked, the effective dates of the ITP are September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2036.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, Freedom of Information and Privacy (FOIP) Office for Investigations, ATTN: Kyrsten L. Rilling, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA 16018, or call the FOIP Office for Investigations at 878-274-1185.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of the attached Transmittal 0D-26.
(i)
(ii)
Date: September 15, 2023
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(iii)
On June 10, 2025, Congress was notified by congressional certification transmittal number 25-0P of the possible sale, under section 36(b)(5)(C) of the AECA, of the addition of the following MDE items: sixteen (16) JDAM KMU-572 tail kits for GBU-38 or LJDAM GBU-54; eighteen (18) inert filled Mk-82 bombs; four (4) AN/APY-8 Lynx synthetic aperture radars; and eight (8) Hellfire Captive Air Training Missiles. Also included were: M34 Hellfire training missiles; Hellfire support equipment; AN/ALQ-230 Radar Warning Receiver/Electronic Support Measures system; Computer Program Identification Numbers; minor and major modifications and kits; aircraft and engine support equipment; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total value of the new items was $149 million. The estimated MDE value increased by $27 million to a revised $102.2 million. The estimated non-MDE value increased by $122 million to a revised $359.2 million. The estimated total case value increased by $149 million to a revised $462.4 million.
This transmittal reports the inclusion of the following additional MDE items: forty (40) Embedded Global Positioning System (GPS)/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGI) (33 installed, 7 spares). The estimated total value of the new items is $12 million. The estimated MDE value will increase by $12 million to a revised $114.2 million. The estimated non-MDE value will not increase and remain at $359.2 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $12 million to a revised $474.4 million.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The EGI with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), Y-Code, or M-Code receiver when available, and Precise Positioning Service is a self-contained navigation system. SAASM, Y-Code, or M-Code enables the GPS receiver access to an encrypted P-signal, providing protection against active spoofing attacks.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice; correction.
The DoD is publishing the corrected unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
On August 28, 2026 (91 FR 55555-55558), the DoD published this notice in the
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
*as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kuwait has requested to buy the following non-major defense equipment: major and minor modification equipment and support; aircraft components, parts, and accessories; instruments and lab equipment; spares and repair parts, consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; ground handling equipment; unclassified Computer Program Identification Numbers; pyrotechnics equipment; cartridges, chaffs, and flares; communications equipment; electrical items support equipment; classified and unclassified software and software support, classified and unclassified publications and technical documentation; clothing, textiles, and individual equipment; personnel training and training equipment; jet fuel; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $484 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a major non-NATO ally that has been an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats by ensuring the operational readiness of its C-17 fleet. Kuwait's C-17 fleet provides strategic airlift capabilities that directly support U.S. and coalition operations around the world. Kuwait will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in Arlington, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of War Education Activity (Executive Services Division), ATTN: James Revell, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350 or call at (571) 372-5821.
Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of War Education Activity (DoWEA) Employment Opportunities for Educators; DoWEA Forms 5010, 5011, and 5013; OMB Control Number 0704-0370.
The primary objective of the information collection is to screen applicants for educational qualification and employment eligibility, to obtain pertinent evaluation information about an applicant to assist management in making a hiring decision, and to obtain applicant consent to obtain personal information from former employer about applicants' employment. The forms associated with this data collection include: (1) Department of War Education Activity Supplemental Application for Overseas Employment (DoWEA Form 5010). The primary objective of this voluntary form is to ascertain applicants' eligibility for educator positions. (2) Department of War Education Activity Professional Evaluation (DoWEA Form 5011). This form is provided to officials who served in managerial and supervisory positions above the applicant as a means of verifying abilities and qualifications of applicants for educator positions. (3) Department of War Education Activity Verification of Professional Educator Employment for Salary Rating Purposes (DoWEA Form 5013). The purpose of this voluntary form is to verify employment history of educator applicants and to determine creditable previous experience for pay-setting purposes. The paper forms and electronic data systems containing the sponsor and dependent personally identifiable information are secured in accordance with the requirements of Federal law and DoW regulations.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Forza Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Forza Pipeline LLC (Forza) and Bull Run Pipeline LLC (Bull Run) in the above-referenced dockets.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the Project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Forza Pipeline Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The BLM will adopt and use the EA to support its decision-making process regarding whether to issue a right-of-way grant for the portion of the project located on BLM-administered land. Although the cooperating agency provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the EA, the agency will present its own conclusions and recommendations in its respective Records of Decision for the Project.
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
• installation of Line FZA-A, a new 35.9-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline beginning in Lea County, New Mexico and terminating in Winkler County, Texas;
• construction of a new meter station (the Desert Ram Junction) in Lea County, New Mexico, including the installation of a new riser;
• installation of a new mainline valve along the proposed Line FZA-A pipeline in Loving County, Texas; and
• installation of a new riser at the existing Wildcat Junction site in Winkler County, Texas.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects.
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-34-000 or CP26-35-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following Accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Exempt Wholesale Generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating CBH as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. CBH filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
p.
Commission staff will hold two scoping sessions in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the sessions to provide oral comments. The times and locations of these sessions are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping sessions, or may be viewed on the web at
The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project. All interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP via email to
Participants will meet at Columbia Basin Hydropower's office and depart at 1:00 p.m. (PDT) to the project facilities. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to Columbia Basin Hydropower and the project facilities.
All persons attending the environmental site review must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots. The applicant will provide hearing protection to attendees for entry into noisy areas, if needed; participants who have their own hardhats should bring them.
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Commission staff will prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an EA or an EIS.
Scoping session participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD and SD1 in preparation for the scoping sessions. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The scoping sessions will begin promptly at their respective start times listed above. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session a half hour earlier than the scheduled time.
Your oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or FERC representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see paragraph (n) of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from CBH will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Proper conduct will help the sessions maintain a respectful atmosphere for attendees to provide comments effectively. Loudspeakers, lighting,
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a scoping session.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of the membership of its Executive Resources Board (ERB) and Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members and Senior Professional (SP) employees. The function of this board is to make recommendations relating to the merit hiring and performance of senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4).
The Commission's ERB and PRB will include the following members. Please remove any members on previous list not included on the list below.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating CBH as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. CBH filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 29, 2026.
p.
Commission staff will hold two scoping sessions in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the sessions to provide oral comments. The times and locations of these sessions are as follows:
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping sessions, or may be viewed on the web at
The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project. All interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP via email to
Participants will meet at Columbia Basin Hydropower's office and depart at 9:00 a.m. (PDT) to the project facilities. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to Columbia Basin Hydropower and the project facilities.
All persons attending the environmental site review must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots. The applicant will provide hearing protection to attendees for entry into noisy areas, if needed; participants who have their own hardhats should bring them.
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Commission staff will prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an EA or an EIS.
Scoping session participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD and SD1 in preparation for the scoping sessions. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The scoping sessions will begin promptly at their respective start times listed above. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session a half hour earlier than the scheduled time.
Your oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or FERC representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see paragraph (n) of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from CBH will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
Proper conduct will help the sessions maintain a respectful atmosphere for attendees to provide comments effectively. Loudspeakers, lighting, oversized visual aids, other visual or audible disturbances, and disruptive video and photographic equipment are not permitted. Recorded interviews are also not permitted within the session space. FERC reserves the right to end the session if disruptions interfere with the opportunity for individuals to provide oral comments or if there is a safety or security risk.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a scoping session.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating CBH as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. CBH filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 29, 2026.
p.
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping sessions, or may be viewed on the web at
The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site
Participants will meet at Columbia Basin Hydropower's office and depart at 9:00 a.m. (PDT) to the project facilities. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to Columbia Basin Hydropower and the project facilities.
All persons attending the environmental site review must wear sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots. The applicant will provide hearing protection to attendees for entry into noisy areas, if needed; participants who have their own hardhats should bring them.
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Commission staff will prepare either an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of analysis and satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares an EA or an EIS.
Scoping session participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD and SD1 in preparation for the scoping sessions. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The scoping sessions will begin promptly at their respective start times listed above. If you wish to speak, Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. If no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session a half hour earlier than the scheduled time.
Your oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or FERC representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see paragraph (n) of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from CBH will also be present to answer project-specific questions. Proper conduct will help the sessions maintain a respectful atmosphere for attendees to provide comments effectively. Loudspeakers, lighting, oversized visual aids, other visual or audible disturbances, and disruptive video and photographic equipment are not permitted. Recorded interviews are also not permitted within the session space. FERC reserves the right to end the session if disruptions interfere with the opportunity for individuals to provide oral comments or if there is a safety or security risk.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a scoping session.
q. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Decision on petitions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notification of its final action entitled August 31, 2026 Decision on Petitions for RFS Small Refinery Exemptions (“August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action”) in which EPA issued decisions on 34 small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program for the 2025 compliance year. EPA is also reissuing a decision for 1 petition for the 2024 compliance year that was originally issued in the August 3, 2026 Decision on Petitions for RFS Small Refinery Exemptions. EPA is providing this notification for public awareness of, and the basis for, EPA's decision announced on August 31, 2026.
September 2, 2026.
Campbell Martin, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004; telephone number: (202) 564-5209; email address:
The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides that a small refinery
In the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action,
The August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action articulates EPA's interpretation of section 211(o)(9) of the CAA and EPA's authority with respect to SRE petitions. As required by CAA section
EPA is also reissuing a partial exemption for 1 petition for the 2024 compliance year that was originally issued in the August 3, 2026 SRE Decisions Action.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final actions by EPA. This section generally provides that petitions for judicial review of final actions that are nationally applicable must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and petitions for judicial review of actions that are locally or regionally applicable must be filed in the appropriate regional circuit.
As the Supreme Court recently articulated in
In the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action, EPA is adjudicating SRE petitions pursuant to the authority granted to the Agency by CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). Each adjudication is a separate “action” for the purposes of determining venue under CAA section 307(b)(1), and because each adjudication only applies to a single refinery, each action is locally or regionally applicable.
First, these adjudications are based on EPA's determination that CAA section 211(o)(9) provides EPA with the authority to find that a small refinery would experience partial DEH if required to comply with its RFS obligations and to extend a partial exemption. As detailed in section III.H of the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action, CAA section 211(o)(9)(B) grants EPA authority to temporarily extend the exemption from RFS obligations to a small refinery that demonstrates “disproportionate economic hardship,” but the statute does not define that phrase or its components, suggesting Congress left it to the Agency's discretion to “fill up the details” when determining how to implement this provision.
Second, these adjudications are based on EPA's determination that the DOE matrix is a reasonable proxy for DEH, and EPA will defer to DOE's findings unless EPA's consideration of other economic factors compels a different result. As detailed in section III.E of the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action, CAA section 211(o)(9)(B) permits a small refinery to petition for an extension of the exemption from its RFS obligations for the reason of DEH. The statute directs EPA to “consider the findings of the [2011 DOE study] and other economic factors” in evaluating a petition but provides no further instruction as to how to effectuate these obligations.
Third, these adjudications are based on EPA's determination that, when extending the exemption, either wholly or partially, to a small refinery that has already retired RINs to comply with its RFS obligations, CAA section 211(o) restricts EPA to returning some or all of those retired RINs, commensurate with the degree of the exemption. As detailed in section IV.B of the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action, returning RINs in this manner effectuates the best reading of the statute. CAA section 211(o)(5) requires that every instance of RIN generation be associated with the refining, blending, or importation of renewable fuel. Section 211(o)(5) also requires that RINs expire after a certain amount of time, while section 211(o)(9)(B) permits small refineries to petition for an extension of the exemption “at any time.” EPA interprets these provisions of CAA section 211(o) to limit EPA to returning RINs retired for compliance, if any, when it grants an extension of the exemption. This determination has nationwide scope because it is an interpretation of a federal statute and CAA sections 211(o)(5) and 211(o)(9)(B) by their terms apply nationwide. Additionally, this determination has nationwide effect because it applies generically to all refineries nationwide, regardless of their geographic location.
This third determination also minimizes disruptions to the RIN market and RFS program, akin to the Fifth Circuit's review of the April 2022 Alternative Compliance Action
The actions discussed within the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action are based on the three determinations outlined above, as these determinations lie “at the core of the agency action[s]” so as to form the most important part of EPA's reasoning.
To fulfill its statutory obligation to consider “other economic factors,” EPA did consider refinery-specific information in its adjudications. However, these confirmatory reviews were not the primary drivers of EPA's actions on these petitions. EPA considered refinery-specific facts only to determine whether to depart from its rebuttable presumption that application of DOE's matrix results in the correct DEH finding, and these considerations, for each small refinery, confirmed that none of the refinery-specific facts rebutted the presumptive disposition. For example, EPA considered information presented by small refineries regarding their financial circumstances and found that the information was already considered in the DOE matrix or did not otherwise justify departing from the finding reached by application of the DOE matrix. Thus, EPA's consideration of refinery-specific facts was peripheral in comparison to EPA's rebuttable presumption that application of the DOE matrix is the best means of determining whether DEH exists.
Additionally, EPA's third determination—that the only permissible way to implement the extension of the exemption from RFS obligations when a small refinery has retired RINs for compliance is to return those retired RINs—is a core driver of EPA's actions because EPA's adjudication of SRE petitions necessarily includes extending the exemption to meritorious petitioners. But how EPA effectuates that extension of the exemption can look different depending on whether the relevant
In the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action, EPA concluded that 2 small refineries were ineligible to petition for an SRE for 2025. For one refinery, EPA concluded that the refinery is ineligible to petition for an SRE for compliance year 2025 because the refinery did not receive the initial blanket exemption. This decision is based on EPA's determination that, for a small refinery to be eligible to petition for an extension of the small refinery exemption, it must have received the initial blanket exemption. CAA section 211(o)(9)(B)(i) provides that a small refinery may “petition the Administrator for an extension of the exemption under subparagraph (A) for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” Notably, this provision does not provide for an exemption, but rather an extension of the blanket exemption under CAA section 211(o)(9)(A)(i). For EPA to be able to “extend” an exemption to a small refinery, there must have been an exemption for it to extend in the first instance. EPA interprets these provisions of the CAA to require that a small refinery have received the initial blanket exemption under subparagraph A(i) to be eligible to petition for an extension of that exemption under subparagraph B(i). This determination has nationwide scope because it is an interpretation of a federal statute and CAA section 211(o)(9)(B) by its terms applies nationwide.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA finds that the final actions discussed within the August 31, 2026 SRE Decisions Action are based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is publishing that finding in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
2.
Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Issuance of a Single-Source Cooperative Agreement.
The ACF, CB announces the intent to award a single-source cooperative agreement in the amount of up to $1 million to Spaulding for Children in Southfield, MI. The purpose of this award is to continue the implementation and dissemination efforts of the National Training and Development Curriculum for Foster/Adoptive Parents (NTDC), a state-of-the-art training program to prepare foster, adoptive, and kinship caregivers to effectively parent children and to provide these families with ongoing skill development needed to understand and promote healthy child development.
The proposed period of performance is September 30, 2026, to September 29, 2027.
Catherine Heath, Child Welfare Program Specialist, Children's Bureau, 330 C. Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 690-7888; Email:
The award will fund the continued implementation and support to scale up NTDC, allowing more states, tribes, territories, and agencies to implement it. NTDC was developed by Spaulding for Children under a CB cooperative agreement starting in 2017 and is a free high-quality training that child welfare and adoption agencies can integrate into their preparation and training for foster, adoptive, and kinship families. At the close of the project, Spaulding for Children made the resources and materials available. However, agencies that train foster, adoptive, and kinship families continue to need assistance in the effective implementation of NTDC. Effective and relevant training is critical for prospective and current foster, adoptive, and kinship caregivers. Caregiver training aids in the development of resource homes and placement stability of children. This cooperative agreement will allow Spaulding for Children to continue NTDC.
Spaulding for Children is the only entity that can carry out this work, as it owns and manages NTDC. Spaulding for Children currently hosts the materials and is a nationally known leader in the field of foster and adoptive parent training. Spaulding for Children already maintains relationships with state, tribal, and territorial child welfare and adoption agencies to disseminate information on new opportunities available due to the award. No other organization has ever implemented NTDC.
Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing to collect data for state requests of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Contingency Fund provisional payments through the TANF Contingency Fund Application.
Comments due October 2, 2026.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
The TANF Contingency Fund Application for the 50 states and the District of Columbia will create an optional monthly burden with an average of 15 states responding, although up to 50 states and the District of Columbia may be eligible. We estimate the annual burden to be an average of 3 hours per response, with an estimate of 7 responses per respondent each year.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry titled “Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosage.” This guidance assists sponsors in the design and analysis of studies that assess the influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics and, where appropriate, the pharmacodynamics of a drug, including therapeutic biological products. When final, this guidance will represent FDA's current thinking. FDA is also withdrawing the guidance for industry titled “Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling” (May 2003), which formerly provided FDA's thinking relating to studies to assess the effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of a drug and recommendations to include hepatic impairment information in labeling.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by December 1, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Martina Sahre, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9659,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry titled “Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosage.” This guidance assists sponsors in the design and analysis of studies that assess the influence of impaired hepatic function, herein referred to as hepatic impairment (HI), on the pharmacokinetics and, where appropriate, the pharmacodynamics of a drug, including therapeutic biological products.
The liver is a major organ involved in the elimination of drugs through metabolism and/or through biliary excretion of unchanged drug or metabolites. Liver disease can change these metabolic and excretory pathways by impacting drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters. In addition, the absorption and distribution of drugs can also be affected by liver disease. In summary, liver disease can lead to changes in a drug's pharmacokinetics, to a degree necessitating different recommendations for use of the drug (
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosage.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. FDA is also withdrawing the guidance for industry titled “Pharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Hepatic Function: Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling” (68 FR 32531, May 30, 2003), which formerly provided FDA's thinking relating to studies to assess the effect of HI on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of a drug and recommendations to include HI information in labeling.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 relating to certain prescription product labeling requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry (GFI) #115 (VICH GL22(R)) titled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Reproduction Testing (Revision 1).” This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). The objective of this guidance is to ensure international harmonization of reproduction testing that is appropriate for the evaluation of effects on reproduction from long-term, low-dose exposures; these effects may be encountered from the presence of veterinary drug residues in food.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-0826,
FDA is announcing the availability of final GFI #115 (VICH GL22(R)) titled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Reproduction Testing (Revision 1).” FDA has participated in efforts to enhance international harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical
FDA has actively participated in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of founding member representatives from the European Commission and European Medicines Agency; AnimalhealthEurope; FDA—Center for Veterinary Medicine; the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Center for Veterinary Biologics; the U.S. Animal Health Institute; the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and the Japanese Veterinary Products Association. There are 10 standing members to the VICH Steering Committee: one representative from government and one representative from industry of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The World Organisation for Animal Health is an associate member of the VICH. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by HealthforAnimals.
This guidance document is intended to provide study design recommendations that will facilitate the mutual acceptance by the relevant regulatory authorities of safety data for the determination of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) for veterinary drug residues in human food. The guidance reflects the recommendations of the VICH set forth in the VICH GL22(R) guideline.
In the
This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Reproduction Testing.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of two final guidances titled “Dental Composite Resin Devices—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions” and “Dental Curing Lights—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.” These guidance documents provide recommendations for device description, performance testing, and labeling to include in 510(k) submissions for dental composite resin devices and dental curing lights. These guidances supersede the guidances “Dental Composite Resin Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” dated October 26, 2005 and “Dental Curing Lights—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” dated March 27, 2006. The recommendations in these guidances are intended to promote consistency and facilitate efficient review of these submissions.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Michael Adjodha, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 301-796-6276.
These guidance documents provide recommendations for device description, performance testing, and labeling to include in 510(k) submissions for dental composite resin devices and dental curing lights. Dental composite resin devices are devices intended to fill and restore defects or carious lesions in teeth. The device may be supplied as a two-part base and catalyst system that is self-cured or a one-part system that is cured via photoinitiation. Dental curing lights are devices that emit non-ionizing optical radiation intended to photopolymerize dental restorative resins. These guidances supersede “Dental Composite Resin Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” dated October 26, 2005 and “Dental Curing Lights—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” dated March 27, 2006. The recommendations in these guidances are intended to promote consistency and facilitate efficient review of these submissions.
A notice of availability of the draft guidances appeared in the
These guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These guidances represent the current thinking of FDA on Dental Composite Resin Devices—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions and Dental Curing Lights—Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining copies of the guidances may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While these guidances contains no new collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry (GFI) #116 (VICH GL23(R2)) titled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing (Revision 2).” This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). The objective of this guidance is to ensure international harmonization of genotoxicity testing of veterinary drug residues.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-0826,
FDA is announcing the availability of final GFI #116 (VICH GL23(R2)) titled “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing (Revision 2).” FDA has participated in efforts to enhance international harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of founding member representatives from the European Commission and European Medicines Agency; AnimalhealthEurope; FDA—Center for Veterinary Medicine; the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Center for Veterinary Biologics; the U.S. Animal Health Institute; the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and the Japanese Veterinary Products Association. There are 10 standing members to the VICH Steering Committee: one representative from government and one representative from industry of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The World Organisation for Animal Health is an associate member of the VICH. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by HealthforAnimals.
This guidance document is intended to provide study design recommendations that will facilitate the mutual acceptance by the relevant regulatory authorities of safety data for the determination of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) for veterinary drug residues in human food. The guidance reflects the recommendations of the VICH set forth in the VICH GL23(R2) guideline.
In the
This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: Genotoxicity Testing.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) has determined that CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 gram (g)/10 milliliters (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
Awo Archampong-Gray, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6243, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0110,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, is the subject of NDA 019183, held by Abbvie, Inc., and initially approved on December 16, 1993. CARAFATE is indicated in the short-term (up to 8 weeks) treatment of active duodenal ulcer.
CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated July 6, 2026 (Docket No. FDA-2026-P-7537), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, has been voluntarily withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this drug product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list CARAFATE (sucralfate) oral suspension, 1 g/10 mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that GENGLYCOS (parisglasgene brecaparvovec-opnr), approved on August 19, 2026, manufactured by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.
Myrna Hanna, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that GENGLYCOS (parisglasgene brecaparvovec-opnr), manufactured by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. GENGLYCOS (parisglasgene brecaparvovec-opnr) is an adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector-based gene therapy indicated to reduce daily cornstarch intake as an adjunct to nutritional management in adult and pediatric patients 8 years age and older with Glycogen Storage Disease Type la (GSDla).
For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on computer matching, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is providing notice of the establishment of a new matching program. Pursuant to the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, HHS, including its component divisions and program offices, is establishing a new matching program consisting of the computerized comparison of an HHS system of records with the Do Not Pay (DNP) Working System, which is administered by Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This matching program will enable HHS to compare records maintained in an HHS system of records covering HHS grantees and grant payments with records maintained in the DNP Working System for the purposes of identifying and preventing improper payments and conducting any related recovery activities.
Submit comments on or before October 2, 2026. This new matching program will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice through September 10, 2029.
Written comments on this notice may be submitted electronically through the Federal government eRulemaking portal at
Comments on this proposed matching program may also be addressed to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Hye J. (Sheri) Min, Director, Payment Management Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N25, Rockville, MD 20852, or by email:
Interested parties may submit written comments on this notice to the HHS Privacy Act Office by mail at: HHS Privacy Act Officer, 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20201, or by email:
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503) amended the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) by establishing procedural safeguards related to agencies' use of records when performing certain types of computerized matching. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101- 508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for individuals when agencies perform these functions.
Additionally, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3351
HHS 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.
For purposes of this notice, matches between HHS PMS and the DNP Working System constitute a single agency-wide matching program implementing DNP for all HHS grant payments.
The records contained within HHS PMS are maintained in the system of records known as Department of Health and Human Services System of Records Notice (SORN) 09-90-0024, the HHS Financial Management System of Records, last published in full at 80 FR 67767 (11/3/15) and updated at 83 FR 6591 (2/14/18) and 91 FR 12200 (3/12/26). This system of records includes databases maintained in PMS and covers records retrieved by personal identifier about individuals who receive or are entitled to a payment from HHS and individuals who pay or owe money to HHS.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the invention embodied in the patents and patent applications listed in the
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases' Technology Advancement Office on or before September 17, 2026 will be considered.
Inquiries and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Betty B. Tong, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, NIDDK Technology Advancement Office, Telephone: (301)-451-7836; Email:
1. Australian Patent Application No. 2020239920 filed March 9, 2020, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-081-2019-0-AU-01];
2. South Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-7033113 filed March 9, 2020, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-81-2019-0-KR-01];
3. New Zealand Patent Application No. 781109 filed October 7, 2020, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-081-2019-0-NZ-01];
4. United States Patent Application No. 17/438, 580 filed September 13, 2021, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-081-2019-0-US-02];
5. United States Patent Application No. 18/831,326 filed November 19, 2024, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-081-2019-0-US-03];
6. European Patent 3941460, issued October 15, 2025, entitled “Method for Improving Insulin Sensitivity” [HHS Reference No. E-81-2019-0-EP-01].
The patent rights in the invention have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be “worldwide”, and the field of use may be limited to the following:
“Commercial development of mifepristone and analogues for treatment of hypercortisolism-related insulin resistance disorders in humans”
The subject technology describes a method of treating or ameliorating insulin sensitivity disorders using glucocorticoid receptor antagonist (GRA), like mifepristone, to block the metabolic side effects of cortisol, which is a key driver of hepatic and adipose insulin resistance. The invention relates to a specific dosing approach that restricts dosage to avoid over-activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and ensure cortisol safety levels.
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Complete applications for a license that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license. In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain confidential business information and any release of information in these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by October 2, 2026.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Jane J. Na, Director, Division of Assurances, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Dr. (RKL1), Room 812-C, MSC 7983, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-7163 or email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 8,542.
The Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Jon Lorsch, 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
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew three information collections without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On March 12, 2026, we published in the
The remaining comments listed below did not address the information collection requirements and therefore, no response is required:
On March 12, 2026, we published in the
The remaining comments received did not address the information collection requirements and therefore, no response is required.
On March 12, 2026, we published in the
(1) Occurrences of non-lethal, temporarily-injurious incidental take.
(2) The detailed circumstances surrounding each occurrence of incidental take.
(3) Any measures undertaken or intended to be undertaken to reduce the likelihood of such incidental take in the future.
The remaining comments identified below received did not address the information collection requirements and therefore, no response is required:
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our IC requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
1.
a. Unintentional taking incidental to otherwise lawful activities (
b. Animal husbandry actions authorized to manage the population (
c. Take in defense of human life;
d. Take related to defense of property (if authorized); or
e. Take in the form of authorized harassment.
2.
The information that we collect includes:
a. Name, address, and phone number of reporting party;
b. Species involved;
c. Type of incident;
d. Quantity of take;
e. Location and time of the reported incident; and
f. Description of the circumstances related to the incident.
3.
Service recovery specialists use this information to determine the success of reintroductions in relation to established recovery plan goals for the experimental populations of vertebrate endangered and threatened species involved. In addition, this information helps us to assess the effectiveness of control activities in order to develop better means to reduce problems with livestock for those species where depredation is a problem.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
b.
c. Gray wolves
5.
a. post-release wolf movements and behavior;
b. wolf minimum counts or abundance estimates;
c. reproductive success and recruitment;
d. territory use and distribution;
e. cause-specific wolf mortalities; and
f. a summary of wolf conflicts and associated management activities to minimize wolf conflict risk.
6.
7.
a. The basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives;
b. Data indicating that the ungulate herd is below management objectives;
c. Data indicating that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to the ungulate population;
d. Why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate herd to management objectives;
e. The level and duration of wolf removal being proposed;
f. How ungulate population response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness; and
g. A demonstration that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or of Tribal government commitment to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal. The proposal must be subjected to both public and peer review prior to it being finalized and submitted to the Service for review. At least three independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter that are not staff of the Tribe submitting the proposal must review the proposal. Upon Service review, and before wolf removals can be authorized, the Service will evaluate the information provided by the requesting Tribe and provide a written determination to the requesting Tribal game and fish agency on whether such actions are scientifically based and warranted.
The Service uses the information described above to assess the effectiveness of control activities and develop means to reduce problems with livestock where depredation is a problem. Service recovery specialists use the information to determine the success of reintroductions in relation to established recovery plan goals for the species involved.
1.
a. Name, address, and phone number of reporting party;
b. Species involved;
c. Type of incident;
d. Take (quantity);
e. Location and time of reported incident; and
f. Description of the circumstances related to the incident.
Some of these contacts would be necessary follow-up reports under where the Service has authorized lethal take of experimental animals (
The Service would collect information in three categories:
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
a.
b.
3.
4.
5.
The Service would use the information described above to document the locations of reintroduced animals, determine causes of mortality and conflict with human activities so that Service managers could minimize conflicts with people, and improve management techniques for reintroduction. The information would help the Service assess the effectiveness of management activities and develop means to reduce problems with livestock for those species where depredation is a problem. Service recovery specialists would use the information to determine the success of reintroductions in relation to established recovery plan goals for the species.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an existing information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On April 13, 2026, we published in the
The information we collect through Form 3-2469 enables FWS to evaluate proposed operations, apply mitigation, and ensure compliance with applicable
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service's regulations in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR, part 29, subpart D provide for the continued exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights while avoiding or minimizing unnecessary impacts to national wildlife refuge resources and uses. Other land management agencies have regulations that address oil and gas development, including the Department of the Interior's National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. These agencies all require the submission of information similar to the information requested by the Service.
The collection of information is necessary for the Service to properly balance the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights within national wildlife refuge boundaries with the Service's responsibility to protect wildlife and habitat, water quality and quantity, wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and the health and safety of employees and visitors on NWRS lands.
The information collected under 50 CFR, part 29, subpart D, identifies the owner and operator (the owner and operator can be the same) and details how the operator may access and develop oil and gas resources. It also identifies the steps the operator intends to take to minimize any adverse impacts of operations on refuge resources and uses. No information is submitted unless the operator wishes to conduct oil and gas operations.
We use the information collected to (1) evaluate proposed operations; (2) ensure that all necessary mitigation measures are employed to protect
1.
• Documentation of the right to operate within the refuge.
• Contact information (names, phone numbers, and addresses) of the primary company representative, the representative responsible for field supervision, and the representative responsible for emergency response.
• Scaled map clearly delineating the existing area of operations.
• Documentation of the current operating methods, surface equipment, materials produced or used, and monitoring methods.
• Copies of all plans and permits required by local, State, and Federal agencies.
2.
• Contact information (name, legal address, and telephone number) for the person(s) responsible for the overall management of the proposed operations.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
• Name, legal address, telephone number, and qualifications of all specialists responsible for conducting the reconnaissance surveys.
• Brief description of the intended operation so that we can determine reconnaissance survey needs.
• Description of the survey methods used to identify natural and cultural resources.
• Location map (to-scale and determined by us to be acceptable) delineating the proposed reconnaissance survey area in relation to the refuge boundary and the proposed area of operations.
• Description of proposed means of access and routes for conducting the reconnaissance surveys.
3.
4.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
• An overview of the proposed operation and timing.
5.
A.
• Contact information (name, legal address, and telephone number) for the person(s) responsible for the overall management of the proposed operations.
• Documentation demonstrating the right to operate within the refuge.
B.
• Description of the natural features of the proposed area of operations such as: streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands (including estimated depths to the top and bottom of zones of usable water); topographic relief; and areas that the Service has indicated are sensitive.
• Locations of existing roads, trails, railroad tracks, pipeline rights-of-way, pads, and other disturbed areas.
• Locations of existing structures that the operations could affect, including buildings; pipelines; oil and gas wells, including both producing and plugged and abandoned wells; injection wells; freshwater wells; underground and overhead electrical lines; and other utility lines.
• Descriptions of the natural and cultural resource conditions from reconnaissance survey reports or other sources collected for the proposed area of operations including baseline testing of soils, surface, and ground waters within the area of operations that reasonably may be impacted by surface operations.
C.
• Proposed area of operations, existing conditions, and proposed new surface uses, including the boundaries of each of the oil and gas tracts in relation to the proposed operations and the relevant refuge boundary.
• Proposed access routes of new surface disturbances as determined by a location survey.
• Location of all support facilities, including those for transportation (
• Method and diagrams (including cross sections) of any proposed pad construction, road construction, cut-and-fill areas, and surface maintenance, including erosion control.
• Number and types of equipment and vehicles, including an estimate of vehicular round trips associated with the operation.
• Estimated timetable for the proposed operations, including any operational timing constraints.
• Type and extent of security measures proposed at the area of operation.
• Power sources and their transmission systems for the proposed operations.
• Types and quantities of all solid and liquid waste generated and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and disposal.
• Source, quantity, access route, and transportation/conveyance method for all water to be used in operations (including hydraulic fracturing), as well as estimates of any anticipated wastewater volumes generated (including flowback fluids from hydraulic fracturing operations and the proposed methods of storage, handling, and recycling or disposal).
D.
• Map showing the positions of each survey line including all source and receiver locations as determined by a locational survey, and shot point offset distances from wells, buildings, other infrastructure, cultural resources, and environmentally sensitive areas.
• Number of crews and numbers of workers in each crew.
• Description of the acquisition methods (including the procedures and specific equipment that will be used) and energy sources (
• Description of methods of access along each survey line for personnel, materials, and equipment.
• List of all explosives, blasting equipment, chemicals, and fuels that will be used in the proposed operations, including a description of proposed disposal methods, transportation methods, safety measures, and storage facilities.
E.
• Description of well pad construction, including dimensions and cross sections of cut-and-fill areas and excavations for ditches, sumps, and spill control equipment or structures (including lined areas).
• Description of the drill rig and equipment layout including rig components, fuel tanks, testing equipment, support facilities, storage areas, and all other well-site equipment and facilities.
• Description of type and characteristics of the proposed drilling mud systems.
• Description of the equipment, materials, and methods of surface operations associated with drilling, well casing and cementing, well control, well evaluation and testing, well completion, hydraulic fracturing or other well stimulation, and well plugging.
F.
• Dimensions and a to-scale layout of: the well pad, clearly identifying well locations and noting partial reclamation areas; gathering, separation, metering, and storage equipment; electrical lines; fences; spill control equipment or structures including lined areas, artificial lift equipment, tank batteries, treating and separating vessels, secondary or enhanced recovery facilities, water disposal facilities, gas compression and/or injection facilities; metering points; sales point (if on lease); tanker pickup points; gas compressor, including size and type (if applicable); and any other well site equipment.
• General description of anticipated stimulations, servicing, and workovers.
• Description of the procedures and equipment used to maintain control of the well(s).
• Description of method and means used to transport produced oil and gas, including vehicular transport; flowline and gathering line construction and operation, pipe size, and operating pressure; cathodic protection methods; surface equipment use; surface equipment location; maintenance procedures; maintenance schedules; pressure detection methods; and shutdown procedures.
• Road and well pad maintenance plan, including equipment and materials to maintain the road surface and control erosion.
• Vegetation management plan for well sites, roads, pipeline corridors, and other disturbed surface areas, including control of noxious and invasive species.
• Stormwater management plan on the well site.
• Produced water storage and disposal plan.
• Description of the equipment, materials, and procedures proposed for well plugging.
G.
• Description of proposed steps to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental impacts on refuge resources and uses including: refuge's land features, land uses, fish and wildlife, vegetation, soils, surface and subsurface water resources, air quality, noise, lightscapes, viewsheds, cultural resources, and economic environment.
• Description of any anticipated impacts that cannot be mitigated.
• Description of all alternatives considered that meet the criteria of technologically feasible, least-damaging methods of operations, as well as the costs and environmental effects of such alternatives.
H.
• For spill control and emergency preparedness plan, submit contact information (name, address, and telephone number) for the appropriate officials to be contacted by the Service in the event of a spill, fire, or accident, including the order in which the persons should be contacted.
• Notification procedures and steps taken to minimize damage in the event of spill, fire, or accident, including the order in which individuals should be contacted.
• Identification of contaminating or toxic substances used within the area of operations (or expected to be encountered during operations).
• Trajectory analysis for potential spills that are not contained on location.
• Identification of abnormal pressure, temperature, toxic gases or substances, or other hazardous conditions at the area of operations or expected to be encountered during operations.
• Measures (
• Steps to prevent accumulations of oil or other materials deemed to be fire hazards from occurring in the vicinity of well locations and lease tanks.
• Equipment and methods for containment and cleanup of contaminating substances, including a description of the equipment available at the area of operations and equipment available from local contractors.
• Storm water drainage plan and actions intended to mitigate storm water runoff.
• Safety data sheets for each material that will be used or encountered during operations, including expected quantities maintained at the area of operations.
• Description of the emergency actions that will be taken in the event of injury or death to fish and wildlife or vegetation.
• Description of the emergency actions that will be taken in the event of accidents causing human injury.
• Contingency plans for conditions and emergencies other than spills, such as if the area of operations is located in areas prone to hurricanes, flooding, tornados, fires, or earthquakes.
I.
• Description of the specific equipment, materials, methods, and schedule that will be used to meet the operating standards for reclamation specified at § 29.117.
• Itemized list of the estimated costs that a third party would charge to complete reclamation.
J.
• Financial assurance in the amount specified by the Service and in accordance with the requirements of §§ 29.150 through 29.154.
• Proof of liability insurance with limits sufficient to cover injuries to persons or property caused by the operations.
K.
L.
• Operators must notify the Service within 24 hours of any injuries to or mortality of fish, wildlife, or endangered or threatened plants.
• Operators must notify the Service of any accidents involving serious personal injury or death and of any fires or spills on the site immediately after the accident occurs. A written report on the accident must be submitted to the Service within 90 days after the accident occurs.
• Operators must submit reports or other information necessary to verify compliance with the permit or with any provision of subpart D of the regulations.
• If operations include hydraulic fracturing, the operator must provide a report including:
M.
N.
• Names and addresses of the person or entity conveying the right and of the person or entity acquiring the right.
• Effective date of transfer.
• Description of the rights, assets, and liabilities being transferred and which ones, if any, are being reserved.
• A written acknowledgement from the new operator that the contents of the notification are true and correct.
O.
• Documentation demonstrating that it holds the right to operate within the refuge.
• Names, phone numbers, and addresses of the primary company representative, the representative responsible for field supervision, and the representative responsible for emergency response.
The transferee must submit an operations permit application in compliance with §§ 29.90-97 within 90 calendar days from the date of the transfer. Since production operations are in place, the scope of information requirements would be limited and focused on relevant information requirements listed above for Parts 7, 8, 9, and 10.
P.
• Documentation demonstrating that it holds the right to operate within the refuge.
• Names, phone numbers, and addresses of the primary company representative; the representative responsible for field supervision; and the representative responsible for emergency response.
• Written agreement to conduct operations in accordance with all terms and conditions of the previous operator's permit.
• Financial assurance that is acceptable to the Service and made payable to the Service.
Q.
• Explanation of why the well is shut-in or temporarily abandoned and future plans for utilization.
• Demonstration of the mechanical integrity of the well.
• Description of the manner in which the operator's well, equipment, and area of operations will be maintained in accordance with the standards in subpart D of the regulations.
R.
(1) An operator, or the operator and the owner of the information required under this subpart, may support a claim to be exempt from public disclosure of information otherwise required. If required information is withheld, the operator must submit an affidavit § 29.210(d) that:
• Identifies the owner of the withheld information and provides the name, address, and contact information for an authorized representative of the owner of the information.
• Identifies the Federal statute or regulation that would prohibit the Service from publicly disclosing the information if it were in the Service's possession.
• Affirms that the operator has been provided the withheld information from the owner of the information and is maintaining records of the withheld information, or that the operator has access and will maintain access to the information held by the owner of the information.
• Affirms that the information is not publicly available.
• Affirms that the information is not required to be publicly disclosed under any applicable local, State, or Federal law.
• Affirms that the owner of the information is in actual competition and identifies competitors or others that could use the withheld information to cause the owner substantial competitive harm.
• Affirms that the release of the information would likely cause substantial competitive harm to the owner and provides the factual basis for that affirmation.
• Affirms that the information is not readily apparent through reverse engineering with publicly available information.
(2) If the operator relies upon information from third parties, such as the owner of the withheld information, to make the previous affirmations, the operator must provide a written affidavit from the third party that sets forth the relied-upon information (§ 29.210(e)).
(3) We may require any operator to submit any withheld information and any information relevant to a claim that withheld information is exempt from public disclosure (§ 29.210(f)).
(4) The operator must maintain records of any withheld information until the latter of the Service's release of the operator's financial assurance or 7 years after completion of operations on refuge lands (§ 29.210(h)).
(5) If any of the chemical identity information required in this subpart is withheld, the operator must provide the generic chemical name in the submission required. The generic chemical name must be only as nonspecific as is necessary to protect the confidential chemical identity, and should be the same as or no less descriptive than the generic chemical name provided to the Environmental Protection Agency (§ 29.210(i)).
The public may request a copy of Form 3-2469 associated with this collection by sending a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer (see
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 1, 2026, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 17, 2026.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 1, 2026. Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.13, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS), are requesting an extension of a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 2, 2026.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer (ADIR-ICCO), 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, (MS-263) Reston, VA 20191 (mail); or
To request additional information about this information collection request (ICR), contact Dr. Amelia Johnson, Epidemiologist-Injury and Infectious Disease, Office of Health and Safety National Park Service, Washington, DC 20240 by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency 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 (
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 personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Disease Reporting and Surveillance System (DRSS) also collects information about symptoms, how long a person has been ill, and where the illness occurred. DRSS helps public health staff take timely and effective action. It provides early warnings of possible outbreaks to parks, OPH staff, concession managers, and clinic operators so they can respond promptly to protect health and safety.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a new matching program.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on computer matching, the Department of Justice (“Department”) is providing notice of the establishment of a new matching program. Pursuant to the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, the Department, including its components and program offices, is establishing a new matching program consisting of the computerized comparison of systems of records for benefits programs at the Department with the Do Not Pay (DNP) Working System, which is administered by Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service. This matching program will
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is subject to a 30-day notice and comment period. Please submit any comments by October 2, 2026. This new matching program will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice through September 10, 2029.
The public is invited to submit any comments to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Two Constitution Square, 145 N St. NE, Suite 8W-300, Washington, DC 20530; by facsimile at 202-307-0693; or by email at
Kameron Cox, Counsel, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Two Constitution Square, 145 N St. NE, Suite 8W-300, Washington, DC 20530; by facsimile at 202-307-0693; or by email at
On March 25, 2025, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14249,
The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 (31 U.S.C. 3351
The purposes of the matching program are identifying and preventing improper payments and conducting any related recovery activities by verifying through Do Not Pay prepayment or pre-award eligibility. Data elements that are necessary for eligibility determinations for a relevant Department program that are contained in records from the Department systems of records will be compared with records in the DNP Working System. When there is a match between a record provided by the Department program and a record in the DNP Working System, the DNP Working System will notify the submitting the Department program of a potentially matching record and will identify the database(s) that contain the potentially matching record(s). The Department program will then review the information to determine whether additional action is needed. If no matches are identified, the DNP Working System will provide a “no match” response to the submitting the Department program.
Data elements (derived from claimants or beneficiaries) that will be used for the matching activity include:
1. First and Last Name.
2. Social Security Number.
3. Date of Birth (Note that “Date of Birth” is not transmitted by the Department to DNP. Date of Birth is used to validate results from Do Not Pay).
1. First and Last Name.
2. Social Security Number.
3. Date of Birth (Note that “Date of Birth” is not transmitted by the Department to DNP. Date of Birth is used to validate results from Do Not Pay).
United States Department of Justice System of Records Notices and citations follow. An asterisk (*) designates the last full
United States Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, notice is hereby given that the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) proposes to develop a new system of records titled “Department of Justice Learning Management and Training Records, JUSTICE/DOJ-023,” which contains training records, forms, requests, surveys, and learning modules. Currently, DOJ learning management and training records are covered by the government-wide SORN OPM/GOVT-1, General Personnel Records. However, OPM/GOVT-01 only covers records related to current and former Federal employees. The DOJ proposes to establish this system of records to include learning management and training records related to both DOJ personnel, including contractors, volunteers, interns and grantees, as well as guest lecturers, partner law enforcement officers, members of the public, and the press who participate in and/or facilitate learning and training functions for the Department. The records in this system may include enrollment and participation information, class schedules, programs, names, business or personal contact information, and feedback about the training provided. Much of the information in the records, such as learning and training requests, completed training, and training feedback, will be supplied by the individuals to which the information pertains.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by October 2, 2026.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit any comments by mail to the United States Department of Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Two Constitution Square, 145 N St. NE, Suite 8W-300, Washington, DC 20530; by facsimile at 202-307- 0693; or by email at
William N. Taylor II, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Policy, Management, and Procurement, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, (202) 514-3102.
The U.S. Department of Justice Learning Management and Training system of records supports DOJ efforts related to Executive Order 13111, the President's Management Agenda (PMA)—Strategic Management of Human Capital, and the e-Government Human Resources Line of Business—Human Resources Development (HR LOB/HRD). The system is designed to facilitate the delivery and record-keeping of training to DOJ personnel, various DOJ partners, and members of the public.
This system of records captures information identifying individual users and the DOJ-sponsored training they take. This system of records is maintained to provide educational and training programs, including access to commercial and component-specific web-based courseware, management of an online catalog of course offerings, automated training registration and approval processes, online individual development planning, online testing and surveys, tracking of training resources, management of and reporting on training data, and tracking of training completion.
OPM policy requires the collection and reporting of training data for all Federal employees, as outlined in the OPM Guide to Human Resources Reporting (available at
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(13), records maintained in this system of records may be disclosed to a consumer reporting agency without the prior written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains. Such disclosures will only be made in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Department of Justice Learning Management and Training Records, JUSTICE/DOJ-023.
Classified and unclassified.
Records may be maintained at all locations where the Department of Justice (DOJ) or its contractors operate, or where DOJ operations are supported, including the Robert F. Kennedy Main Justice Department Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
Additionally, records may be maintained electronically at one or more DOJ data centers, including, but not limited to, the Department's Core Enterprise Facilities (CEF), the Department's CEF East, in Clarksburg, WV 26306, and CEF West, Pocatello, ID 83201. Records may also be transferred to a DOJ-authorized cloud service provider within the Continental United States.
Access to these electronic records may occur from any location the DOJ operates or other locations where DOJ Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) operations are supported. Some or all of the records in the system may be duplicated at other locations where the Department has granted direct access to support DOJ operations, system backup, emergency preparedness, and/or continuity of operations.
Training records maintained in a former Federal employee's Official Personnel Folder (OPF), which is generally electronic, are located at the National Personnel Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For all DOJ offices and agencies other than Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP): William N. Taylor, II, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Policy, Management, and Procurement, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, 202-514-3102.
44 U.S.C. 3101; the Government Employees Training Act (GETA), 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118; 5 CFR 410.311 and 410.601; Executive Order 11348, as amended by Executive Order 12107; and DOJ Order 1200.1, Human Resources.
The purpose of this system of records is to capture records necessary to manage DOJ-sponsored training programs. The records in this system of records are maintained to provide educational and training programs, including access to commercial and component-specific web-based courseware, management of online catalogs of course offerings, automated training registration and approval processes, online individual development planning, online testing and surveys, tracking of training resources, management of and reporting on training data, and tracking of training completion.
OPM policy requires the collection and reporting of training data for all Federal employees, as outlined in the OPM Guide to Human Resources Reporting (available at
Summary data from the system is used to track specific measures outlined in the Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan. Demographic data, such as race and national origin, is collected to meet obligations under EEOC Management Directive 715. User data, such as promotion date and entry on position, is used to identify groups of individuals with specific training requirements and to facilitate assignment of curricula. Mandatory training information is tracked for professional development purposes. Instructor data is collected by the Department to identify instructors, assign them to scheduled offerings, and track instructor utilization. Attendee and observer information is collected to administer satisfaction surveys and to facilitate training logistics and planning functions. Administrator data is collected to identify administrators, track their roles, and review their access to and use of the system containing records in this system of records. The Department employs data minimization practices (
Current and former Federal employees as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105; other DOJ personnel, including contractors, volunteers, interns and grantees; other non-DOJ individuals who attend, participate in, or observe DOJ training, including (but not limited to) military, tribal, state, and local law enforcement, investigators, attorneys, social welfare professionals, inmates, and members of the press and public; training instructors and support staff; possible emergency contacts and/or supervisors whose names are collected from attendees; and individuals affiliated with training business processes in connection with training facilities, conferences, and trainings at or with laboratories, vehicles, and firearms.
Records in this system include information pertaining to the training, development, and performance of its learners, instructors, participants, observers, and administrators, including support staff. These records may include:
Personal information (
Information in this system of records is obtained from the following sources:
A. The individual about whom the record pertains; training personnel and entities; Department officials; records collected from other federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies and other authorized individuals or entities; personnel records; and other existing systems of records, including but not limited to OPM/GOVT-01,
B. DOJ's Global Address List (GAL), National Finance Center, and the U.S. Department of Treasury's HR Connect, which populate user profiles for federal employees and contractors.
C. Information collected directly from non-DOJ individuals by DOJ employees to create accounts in the learning management IT system for the purpose of tracking training and development.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purposes for which the information was collected:
Records may be disclosed for the following purposes:
A. To government training facilities (federal, state, and local) and non-government training entities or facilities (
B. To the trained individual's employer or sponsor for the training, and to organizations responsible for tracking or maintaining records of training certifications and compliance.
C. To appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authorities, or other appropriate entities, where a record—alone or in conjunction with other information—indicates a violation or potential violation of law (criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature), and that referred entity is charged with investigating, prosecuting, or enforcing or implementing such law.
D. To any person or entity that the Department has reason to believe possesses information regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department, to the extent deemed necessary by the Department to elicit such information or cooperation from the recipient for use in the performance of an authorized activity.
E. To a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body in any appropriate proceeding where the Department of Justice determines the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
F. An actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative, for purposes of settlement negotiations, plea bargaining, or informal discovery proceedings.
G. The news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
H. Contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the agency, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
I. Designated officers and employees of state, local, territorial, or tribal law enforcement or detention agencies, in connection with the hiring or continued employment of an employee or contractor who would occupy, or does occupy, a position of public trust as a law enforcement officer or detention officer having direct contact with the public or with prisoners/detainees, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the recipient agency's decision.
J. Appropriate officials and employees of a Federal agency or entity, including the White House, that require information relevant to a decision concerning hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; execution of a security or suitability investigation; letting of a contract, or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
K. A former employee of the Department, for purposes of: responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, or to facilitate communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personal related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility, in accordance with applicable Department regulations.
L. Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations that require information concerning an individual's suitability or eligibility for a license or permit.
M. A Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the request is made on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
N. The National Archives and Records Administration, for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
O. Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (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 Department's
P. Another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department 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.
Q. To any agency, organization, or individual, such as the Government Accountability Office, the Department's Office of the Inspector General, or the Office of Special Counsel, for the purpose of performing authorized audit or oversight operations of the Department, including those related to fraud, waste, and abuse, and meeting related reporting requirements.
R. Recipients under circumstances and procedures as mandated by federal statutes or treaties.
S. An organization or individual in either the public or private sector, where there is reason to believe the recipient is or could become the target of a particular criminal activity or conspiracy, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life or property.
T. Individuals and organizations, to the extent necessary, to verify their qualifications or eligibility for training.
U. Treasury Department, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau employees, when necessary to accomplish a Treasury Department or Department of Justice function related to this system of records.
V. Unions recognized as exclusive bargaining representatives in accordance with provisions contained in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 7111 and 7114.
All records in this system of records are maintained either in electronic or paper form and are stored in compliance with applicable executive orders, statutes, regulations, and agency implementing recommendations. Electronic records are stored in databases or on hard disks, removable storage devices, or other electronic media.
The Department will retrieve records by any category of records, including name, component, course name, course number, and date registered.
Records in this system are maintained and disposed of in accordance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including applicable records schedules issued by the National Archives and Records Administration. After the appropriate retention period, records will be destroyed/deleted in accordance with appropriate media sanitization procedures.
To the extent that records in this system are a part of the OPF, those records are maintained in the OPF for the period of the employee's service in the agency. They are then, if in a paper format, transferred to the National Personnel Records Center for storage or, as appropriate, to the next employing Federal agency. If the OPF is maintained in an electronic format, the transfer and storage are in accordance with the requirements of the electronic system. Other records are either retained at the agency for various lengths of time in accordance with the NARA records schedules or destroyed when they have served their purpose or when the employee leaves the agency.
This system of records meets all DOJ requirements for authorization to operate per DOJ Order 0904, Cybersecurity Program. Specifically, information in this system is maintained in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and policies on protecting individual privacy. Electronic files and working copies are safeguarded in accordance with DOJ rules and policy governing information systems security and access. The system is protected by physical security methods, administrative processes, and electronic means, including dissemination and access controls. Records and technical equipment are maintained in secure areas with restricted access. Cloud Service Providers maintain system backup information in accordance with a government contract that requires adherence to applicable laws, rules, and policies.
Internet connections are protected by multiple firewalls. Role-based access controls are employed to allocate logical access to a specific job function or area of responsibility. Users of individual DOJ computers can only gain access to that computer by a valid user identification and password or other method of authentication. Security personnel conduct periodic vulnerability scans using DOJ-approved software to ensure security compliance, and security logs are enabled for all computers to assist in troubleshooting and forensics analysis during incident investigations. Additionally, an automated log of queries is maintained on all systems.
All requests for access to records must be in writing and should be addressed to the Justice Management Division, ATTN: FOIA Contact, Department of Justice, Rm. 1111, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, phone: 202-616-0253, email:
Although no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the FOIA/Privacy Act Mail Referral Unit, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530, or on the Department of Justice website at
More information regarding the Department's procedures for accessing records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR part 16 Subpart D, “Protection of Privacy and Access to Individual Records Under the Privacy Act of 1974.”
Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained in this system of records must direct their requests to the address indicated in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph above. All requests to contest or amend records must be in writing, and the envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” All requests must state clearly and concisely what record is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the record.
More information regarding the Department's procedures for amending or contesting records in accordance with the Privacy Act can be found at 28 CFR 16.46, “Requests for Amendment or Correction of Records.”
Individuals may be notified if a record in this system of records pertains to them when the individuals request information utilizing the same procedures as those identified in the “RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES” paragraph above.
None.
Individual SORNs pertaining to this system of records have also been published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the U.S. Marshalls Service (USMS) and cover certain training records in their components (ATF-010, Training and Professional Development Record System, 68 FR 3562 (Jan. 24, 2003); DEA-015, Training Files, 52 FR 47217 (Dec. 11, 1987); and USM-006, United States Marshals Service Training Files, 72 FR 33515 (June 18, 2007)).
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until October 2, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Steven W. Perry (email:
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until October 2, 2026.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Denielle Johnson, 703-632-1938,
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Enterprise Portfolio Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Department of Justice.
Notice of committee reestablishment.
The Department of Justice hereby gives notice of planned filing of the charter for the reestablishment of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Advisory Committee (GAC) as a federal advisory committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended. The GAC will provide recommendations to the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, and the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance on national justice information and criminal intelligence sharing policy, standards, and integration initiatives that support improved public safety and enhanced coordination among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and other justice-interested partners.
David P. Lewis, Senior Policy Advisor, Designated Federal Officer, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 999 N Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 616-7829, toll free (866) 859-2687, or by email at
The GAC is being reestablished to ensure continued access to practitioner-driven guidance on secure, efficient, and interoperable information sharing across the justice community. The committee's charter becomes effective upon filing with Congress and will remain active for a two-year period unless renewed or terminated in accordance with FACA requirements.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget.
Information on the following factors for the committee has been provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the public interest:
The GAC needs to continue because it remains the only nationally representative, practitioner-driven body that provides the Attorney General and DOJ leadership with coordinated, cross-jurisdictional guidance on justice information-sharing policy and integration the DOJ leadership and criminal justice agencies nationwide relies on the GAC to develop national recommendations that enable secure, timely, and standards-based exchange of critical justice and public safety data that directly supports practitioners to enhance public safety and modernize information-sharing across federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies.
In conclusion, this public interest determination documents that renewing the committee is in the public interest, essential to the conduct of agency business, and that the information to be obtained is not already available through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.
The Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, 22 September 2026, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Wednesday, 23 September 2026, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be live-streamed from the offices of the Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Hwy., Room 700, Bethesda, Maryland 0814. There will be no access for in-person participation. Virtual participation will be possible through a Zoom Webinar.
The meeting will be open to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and applicable regulations. Public participants must register in advance to join the Zoom webinar, in advance at:
The Commission and Committee will meet to review and discuss outcomes of the upcoming Range-Wide Gray Whale Science Symposium and consider progress updates from active Commission grant recipients. In addition, the Commission will consider possible actions and initiatives in furtherance of its statutory duties (16 U.S.C. 1402).
Brady O'Donnell, Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer, Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-0087; email:
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments, collection of information.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection of information for the Arts Basic Survey. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by visiting
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days from the date of publication of this Notice to
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate 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;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
As with the SPPA, the ABS data will be circulated to interested researchers and will be the basis for a range of NEA reports and independent research publications. Reports on these data will be made publicly available on the NEA's website or NEA-designated websites. The ABS will provide primary knowledge on the extent and nature of participation in the arts in the United States.
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.
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.
1.
2.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing requests with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add certain Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contracts to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: September 2, 2026.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
On June 5, 2026, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As part of its suite of order types, the Exchange currently offers Users the ability to enter ISOs, which are limit orders for a National Market System stock (“NMS stock”) that meet the following requirements: (i) when routed to a trading center, the limit order is identified as an ISO; (ii) simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the NMS stock with a price that is superior to the limit price of the limit order as identified as an ISO (and these additional routed orders also must be marked as ISOs).
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(d) to: (i) permit an Intermarket Sweep Order to be entered as a Non-Displayed Order and (ii) to establish when the System will consider the limit price of an ISO to be available for other orders to be entered or to re-price to that price level. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(4) to permit Non-Displayed Orders to re-price to more aggressive prices.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(d) to permit an ISO to be entered as a displayed order or as a Non-Displayed Order (a “Non-Displayed ISO”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(d)(2) would provide that upon receipt of an ISO during the Early Trading Session,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(d)(3) would provide that notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), the System will consider the limit price of an ISO entered during Regular Trading Hours to remain available for new orders to be entered or resting orders to re-price
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(4) (“Non-Displayed Order Sliding”) to permit Users to elect multiple price sliding for Non-Displayed Orders. Currently, a Non-Displayed Order containing a price slide instruction that crosses the Protected Quotation of an away market will receive a new timestamp and will be ranked by the System at the locking price and would not be re-priced by the System unless it is again crossing a Protected Quotation of an away market.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Permitting ISOs to be submitted with a Non-Displayed instruction will provide market participants with more flexibility in accomplishing their trading strategies and will enable Users to more effectively implement their trading strategies across market centers. Other national securities exchanges currently offer this function.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As part of its suite of order types, the Exchange currently offers Users the ability to enter ISOs, which are limit orders for a National Market System stock (“NMS stock”) that meet the following requirements: (i) when routed to a trading center, the limit order is identified as an ISO; (ii) simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.8(c) to: (i) permit an Intermarket Sweep Order to be entered as a Non-Displayed Order and (ii) to establish when the System will consider the limit price of an ISO to be available for other orders to be entered or to re-price to that price level. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) to permit Non-Displayed Orders to re-price to more aggressive prices.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.8(c) to permit an ISO to be entered as a displayed order or as a Non-Displayed Order (a “Non-Displayed ISO”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(8)(B) would provide that upon receipt of an ISO during the Early Trading Session,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(8)(C) would provide that notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the System will consider the limit price of an ISO entered during Regular Trading Hours to remain available for new orders to be entered or resting orders to re-price based on User instruction if such order remains eligible for execution during the Post-Closing Session.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) (“Re-Pricing of Non-Displayed Orders”) to permit Users to elect multiple price sliding for Non-Displayed Orders. Currently, a Non-Displayed Order containing a Display-Price Sliding instruction
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Permitting ISOs to be submitted with a Non-Displayed instruction will provide market participants with more flexibility in accomplishing their trading strategies and will enable Users to more effectively implement their trading strategies across market centers. Other national securities exchanges currently offer this function.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to implement an Exchange Order Entry Protocol Migration Program. The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce the Exchange's Order Entry Protocol Migration Program (the, “Program”). As described in further detail below, the Program is intended to provide Members,
Specifically, the proposed Program would provide that during an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration (“Migration”) a Member may establish a logical port to serve solely as a backup connection (“Redundant Logical Port”) during the Member's migration from a prior logical port protocol to the current logical port protocol (“New Logical Port”). The Redundant Logical Port may only be used for Exchange issues directly related to the Migration that prevent the Member from using their New Logical Port, thereby requiring the Member to instead use their Redundant Logical Port to enter orders and/or quotes into the System.
Following receipt of the credit request, the Exchange will review the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage for the period during which the Redundant Logical Port was designated as such and confirm the Member's compliance with (i)-(iv), above. If the Member satisfies these requirements the Exchange will apply a credit for the fees assessed for the Redundant Logical Port to the Member's invoice for the billing cycle following the Exchange's confirmation.
The Exchange is implementing the Program to credit logical port fees back to Members where their establishment of a Redundant Logical Port was solely for the purpose of creating backup logical ports to be used in the event a Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of their own, is not available for use, thereby preventing their access to the Exchange. In this regard, by creating Redundant Logical Ports, Members can responsibly ensure that they will maintain access to the Exchange even in the event where their New Logical Ports, which were created only because of an
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a credit of the applicable monthly logical port fees only where a Member establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with Migration. In this circumstance, the Member is adopting a New Logical Port not as a matter of its own business discretion, but solely because the Exchange has elected to migrate to an updated order entry protocol. The Redundant Logical Port that a Member maintains during such a transition is therefore directly attributable to an Exchange driven change and exists solely to preserve the Member's continued access to the Exchange in the event the Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of the Member, does not function as intended due to an Exchange Migration issue. By contrast, the Exchange does not believe it would be reasonable or appropriate to extend the credit to a logical port that a Member establishes in connection with a Member initiated change, because in that case the additional connection reflects the Member's own operational preferences and business decisions (
The Exchange further believes that the 30-calendar day period during which a Member may maintain a Redundant Logical Port and remain eligible for the credit is reasonable. A migration to a new order entry protocol presents operational risk for Members, and the 30-calendar day overlap period affords Members an adequate opportunity to establish, test, and gain confidence in the operation of their New Logical Port before decommissioning the logical port that supported the prior protocol. Permitting this limited period of overlap reduces the risk that a Member will prematurely cancel a functioning connection and thereby jeopardize its access to the Exchange during a critical transition. At the same time, the Exchange believes 30-calendar days is an appropriately tailored period that is long enough to allow Members to develop confidence in the New Logical Port, while ensuring that the credit remains tied to the migration and is not used to subsidize a Member's maintenance of duplicative connectivity on an indefinite basis. The Exchange also believes that measuring this period in calendar days, rather than business days, promotes clarity and ease of administration for both Members and the Exchange as it removes the need to have to account for holidays and weekends.
The Exchange also believes the proposed Program is reasonable because it is designed to alleviate the migration related costs that Members would otherwise incur solely as a result of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration and to promote Member confidence throughout the Migration process. Absent the Program, a Member that responsibly establishes a Redundant Logical Port to preserve its access to the Exchange during a Migration would be assessed the full monthly logical port fee for a connection that, absent an Exchange Migration related issue, it would not otherwise use. By crediting such fees, the Program removes a financial disincentive to maintaining a backup connection and encourages Members to take reasonable measures to ensure continuity of access during the transition. The Exchange believes that relieving Members of these costs, which arise only because of an Exchange initiated change, supports a more orderly Migration process, reduces operational risk to Members and the market, and thereby removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
For substantially the same reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Program applies uniformly to all similarly situated Members, as any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with an Exchange Migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the credit on the same basis, regardless of the type or size of the Member. The credit is not available on a discretionary or selective basis; rather, it is applied according to the objective, transparent criteria set forth in the proposed rule text, following the Exchange's review of the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage and confirmation of the Member's compliance with those criteria. Because the availability of the credit turns solely on the objective circumstances of an Exchange Migration and the Member's compliance with uniform conditions, the Exchange believes the proposed Program does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
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 proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the Redundant Logical Port credit is available to all Members and Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”)
Although the Program relates to logical ports established in connection with an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, it does not favor any particular type of market participant because any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an Exchange initiated migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the same credit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. The Program is limited to fees and credits for Redundant Logical Ports that Members establish solely because of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, and it does not disadvantage other exchanges. To the extent the Program makes EDGX more attractive or favorable by reducing migration-related costs and supporting continuity of Member access to the Exchange, it will help to foster competition among exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As part of its suite of order types, the Exchange currently offers Users the ability to enter ISOs, which are limit orders for a National Market System stock (“NMS stock”) that meet the following requirements: (i) when routed to a trading center, the limit order is identified as an ISO; (ii) simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the NMS stock with a price that is superior to the limit price of the limit order as identified as an ISO (and these additional routed orders also must be marked as ISOs).
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.8(c) to: (i) permit an Intermarket Sweep Order to be entered as a Non-Displayed Order and (ii) to establish when the System will consider the limit price of an ISO to be available for other orders to be entered or to re-price to that price level. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) to permit Non-Displayed Orders to re-price to more aggressive prices.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.8(c) to permit an ISO to be entered as a displayed order or as a Non-Displayed Order (a “Non-Displayed ISO”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(8)(B) would provide that upon receipt of an ISO during the Early Trading Session,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(8)(C) would provide that notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), the System will consider the limit price of an ISO entered during Regular Trading Hours to remain available for new orders to be entered or resting orders to re-price based on User instruction if such order remains eligible for execution during the Post-Closing Session.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) (“Re-Pricing of Non-Displayed Orders”) to permit Users to elect multiple price sliding for Non-Displayed Orders. Currently, a Non-Displayed Order containing a Display-Price Sliding instruction
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Permitting ISOs to be submitted with a Non-Displayed instruction will provide market participants with more flexibility in accomplishing their trading strategies and will enable Users to more effectively implement their trading strategies across market centers. Other national securities exchanges currently offer this function.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 5, 2026, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Cboe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Rules to permit orders comprised of Cboe Volatility Index (“VIX”) options (“VIX options”) (which trade on the Exchange) and VIX futures (“VX futures”) (which trade on Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC's (“CFE”)) (“VIX future-option orders”). The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules to permit VIX future-option orders. The Exchange understands it is common for investors to engage in hedging or other investment strategies that involve VIX options and VX futures, given they both overlie the same index. However, to execute those strategies, investors must submit a VIX options order to the Exchange and separately submit a VX futures order to CFE, which is the designated contract market (“DCM”) on which the VX futures trade. For example, market participants may obtain positions in VIX options through a transaction on the Exchange and hedge those positions by entering into a separate transaction on CFE for VX futures. Separate executions of this sort create additional risks, including risk that one order will execute while the other does not and price risk resulting from the time it takes to complete both transactions. The Exchange understands that due to those risks and the complexities of multi-part transactions, market participants may instead transact in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market or not obtain a hedge at all. The proposed rule change adopts a mechanism to facilitate the execution of these cross-product transactions in a simple, efficient manner that reduces these execution and price risks.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of a VIX future-option order. Specifically, the proposed rule change amends Rule 1.1 to define a “VIX future-option order”
The proposed definition of a VIX future-option order includes a risk offset requirement. A User
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of the proposed definition of VIX future-option order, a VIX future-option order must be comprised of “groups” of offsetting VX future and VIX options legs. The VX future and VIX option components of each group must have the same expiration, and the VX future leg(s) in a group must provide a risk offset to the VIX option leg(s) in that group of no less than 10% and no greater than 125%. A VIX future-option order satisfies this risk offset requirement if the delta value of each group is no greater than −0.10 and no less than −1.25.
For example, suppose a VIX future-option order is submitted with the following components:
The 1 short Dec VX future is grouped with the 16 long Dec VIX calls, which group has a delta of (−1 × 1,000)/(16 × .50 × 100) = −1,000/800 = −0.125. The 2 long Jan VX futures are grouped with the 35 short Jan VIX puts, which group has a delta of (2 × 1,000)/(35 × −0.60 × 100) = −2,000/2,100 = −0.9524. This order would satisfy the risk offset requirement, as both groups have a delta between −0.10 and −1.25.
If the System determines that a complex strategy comprised of VX future (at a price specified by the User upon order entry)
The proposed rule change also amends the definition of “complex order” in Rule 1.1 to provide that unless the context otherwise requires, the term complex order will include VIX future-option orders.
The proposed rule change adds VIX future-option order to the list of types of complex orders that may be accepted for electronic trading. Specifically, the proposed rule change amends Rule 5.33(b)(5) to reference the proposed definition of VIX future-option order in Rule 1.1 and state that only VIX future-option orders with no more than the applicable number of legs are eligible for electronic processing.
The proposed rule change also amends Rule 5.70(b) to provide that the Exchange may make VIX future-option orders available for flexible (FLEX) options trading. In connection with this change, the proposed rule change amends Rule 4.21(b) to provide that the submitting FLEX Trader of a FLEX VIX future-option order may not modify the terms of the VX future leg(s), as the terms of VX futures are determined by CFE. In other words, a submitting FLEX Trader may designate the terms of the VIX options legs of a VIX future-options order submitted for FLEX trading in the same manner as they may designate the terms of any VIX options submitted for FLEX trading; however, the submitting FLEX Trader may not designate terms of the VX futures leg(s) of the order. Additionally, the proposed rule change adds Rule 5.72(b)(2)(C) to describe additional requirements for FLEX trading that will apply to VIX future-option orders. Specifically, the proposed rule change provides that a FLEX VIX future-option order submitted into the System for an electronic FLEX Auction pursuant Rule 5.72(c) or any other electronic FLEX auction mechanism available under the Rules (such as the FLEX automated improvement mechanism described in Rule 5.73 or the FLEX solicitation auction mechanism described in Rule 5.74) must include a specified price for each VX futures leg (as is required for non-FLEX VIX future-option orders as proposed). Further, the proposed rule change provides if the VX futures leg(s) of a FLEX VIX future-option order cannot execute at the price(s) specified by the submitting User upon order entry, it will be cancelled (also as is required for non-FLEX VIX future-option orders as proposed).
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.33 to describe how VIX future-option orders may execute electronically on the Exchange, which process is substantially similar to that for stock-option orders. As proposed in Rule 5.33(o), when a User submits to the System a VIX future-option order, the Exchange will electronically communicate the VX future component (at the price specified by the User upon order entry) of the VIX future-option order to CFE on behalf of the User (if the User is also a CFE member) or the designated FCM/IB (as defined below) (if the User is not also a CFE member, as described in proposed Interpretation and Policy .05).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .05 provides that to submit a VIX future-option order to the Exchange for execution, if the User is not also a CFE member, a User must enter into an agreement with one or more futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) or introducing brokers (“IBs”) that are not affiliated with the Exchange, which FCM/IB(s) the Exchange has designated as being registered with the Exchange to serve as a routing broker for the VX futures components of VIX future-option orders.
Proposed Rule 5.33(o)(2) provides that a VIX future-option order may execute against other VIX future-option orders (or COA Responses, if applicable), but may not execute against orders in the Simple Book.
The proposed rule change adopts rule 5.33(f)(1)(C) to provide that Users may express bids and offers for a VIX future-option order in the number of decimals permissible for VX futures, which will permit the Exchange to accommodate the available pricing of futures.
Proposed Rule 5.33(o)(2) provides that a VIX future-option order may only execute if the price complies with proposed subparagraph (f)(2)(C), which describes the permissible execution prices and priority of the VIX options components of the VIX future-option orders (which are substantially similar to that of stock-option orders). Specifically, proposed Rule 5.33(f)(2)(C) states for a VIX future-option order with one VIX option leg, the VIX option leg may not trade at a price worse than the individual component price on the simple Book or at the same price as a priority customer order on the Simple Book.
Unlike the stock component of stock-option orders, the VX futures leg(s) of a VIX future-option order may only on CFE if the VX future leg(s) is executable at the price(s) specified by the User upon order entry. Therefore, while the VIX options legs may execute at prices that satisfy the net price and may be improved through exposure on the Exchange, the price(s) of the VX future leg(s) are set upon order entry, as noted above. Specifically, despite being exposed as part of the VIX futures-option order on Cboe, the price of a VX futures component of a VIX futures-option order may not be negotiated once submitted to the Exchange. The price(s) specified by the User upon order entry for VX future leg(s) must be permissible by the CFE rules. As described above and in proposed Rule 5.33(o)(2), after execution of the VIX options component(s) on the Exchange, if CFE is unable to execute the VX futures the
The Exchange believes the proposed execution process for VIX future-option orders is reasonable, because the VIX options and VX futures components of a VIX future-option order are submitted for execution as part of the same investment strategy.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07 to describe how a VIX future-option order may qualify as an obvious error. As proposed, VIX future-option orders will be handled in a similar manner as stock-option orders for purposes of Rule 6.5. Specifically, if the VIX option leg of a VX future-option order qualifies as an obvious error under Rule 6.5(c)(1) or catastrophic error under Rule 6.5(d)(1), then the option leg that is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with Rule 6.5(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a customer. However, the VIX option leg of any customer VIX future-option order will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (lower) for buy (sell) transactions than the customer's limit price on the VIX future-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the VX future leg. Whenever CFE nullifies the VX futures leg(s) of a VIX future-option order or whenever the VX future leg(s) cannot be executed (including at the price by the User upon order entry), the Exchange will nullify the VIX option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with Rule 6.5(c)(3). While this has the same effect as nullification of the VIX option leg(s) transactions set forth in proposed 5.33(o)(2), the proposed nullification in Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07 occurs at a different time, in a different manner, and for different reasons. Rule 5.33(o)(2) is nearly instantaneous nullification of the execution of the VIX option leg(s) if it is communicated to the Exchange that the VX futures leg(s) was unable to execute. In that situation, the customer receives no fill report as the VIX future-option order was not fully executed. However, with respect to Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07, nullification pursuant to this provision permits nullification of the VIX option leg(s) if an execution of a VIX future-option order occurred, but the VX future leg(s) execution was nullified at a later time by CFE pursuant to its rules.
Finally, the proposed rule change adds Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 6.6 to clarify that TPHs may update only the VIX option component of a VIX future-option order trade using Clearing Editor (and as permitted by Rule 6.6). Any updates to the VX future component would need to be done in accordance with CFE rules (if permissible) given that the VX future component of a VIX future-option order ultimately executes in accordance with CFE's Rules.
Activity related to the execution of the VIX options components of VIX future-option orders will be subject to Commission jurisdiction, and activity related to the execution of the VX futures components of VIX future-option orders will be subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) jurisdiction.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it will provide investors with greater opportunities to manage risk. The proposed rule change would provide investors with a more efficient mechanism to execute strategies involving VIX options and VX futures, which investors regularly trade as part of hedging, management of risk exposure, and other investment strategies. The proposed execution mechanism for VIX future-option orders will make the trading and hedging process for investment strategies comprised of VIX option and VX future components more efficient, which will reduce execution, legging, and price drift risk that otherwise accompanies the current execution process for these strategies. For example, today, investors looking to execute an investment strategy comprised of VIX option and VX future components must do so through separate trades—one for the options on the Exchange and one for the futures on CFE. This creates risk that one trade occurs but the other does not, which may leave an investor with an unhedged position. Additionally, separate transactions create risk because market conditions may change between the time it takes to execute both transactions, which may make the full package execute in an unfavorable manner for the investor. Investors may continue to execute these strategies as separate transactions as they do today if they so choose. However, the addition of the proposed electronic execution process would provide investors with an optional, alternative means to execute strategies comprised of VX future and VIX options components that would reduce these risks, as it would permit the entire package to be priced together and will result in an execution only if both the options and futures components are able to trade. The proposed single execution mechanism, therefore, expands the ability of market participants to engage in cross-product investment and hedging transactions, which the Exchange believes will contribute to reduced overall market risk and increased liquidity in the listed markets for products overlying the VIX.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade. The proposed risk offset requirement is designed to provide market participants with sufficient flexibility to execute legitimate options strategies comprised of options and futures while preventing misuse of this mechanism, such as a market participant using the proposed execution mechanism to execute a futures trade outside of the normal trading process on CFE by combining a VX future leg(s), for example, with an inexpensive out-of-the-money option leg. As noted above, the Exchange determined the proposed risk offset range based on experience with and feedback from market participants, as well as a review of the risk offsets of transactions involving VX futures and VIX options. As a result, we feel this range would accommodate their investment strategies. Additionally, the Exchange manually reviewed the risk offsets of executed Exchange of Contract for Related Positions (“ECRPs”) that occurred in accordance with CFE rules (which market participants engage in to exchange future positions for options positions) over a six-month period. None of those ECRP transactions had a risk offset outside of the 10% to 125% range. The Exchange believes review of the risk offsets in ECRPs is informative, as it is a common investment strategy comprised of options and futures positions.
As discussed above, the Commission and the CFTC will maintain jurisdiction over execution of the options and futures components, respectively, of VX future-option orders. Further, each of the Exchange and CFE will regulate conduct relating to future-option orders and trades with respect to compliance with its rules, including bringing disciplinary actions for violations of its rules (
The Exchange believes the proposed execution process will also promote just and equitable principles of trade. As described above, VIX future-option orders will execute in a substantially similar way as complex orders, including stock-option orders. The proposed priority for VIX future-option orders will protect customer VIX option orders in the simple Book. As proposed, the VIX option component(s) of a VIX future-option order will ultimately trade in the same manner and in accordance with the same priority principles as they would if they had been submitted without a VX future leg(s). Further, the proposed process to nullify the VIX option component execution if the VIX future-option order does not execute is consistent with the purpose of the VIX future-option order. Given the VIX option and VX future components of a VIX future-option order are submitted as part of the same investment strategy, if the VX future component does not execute, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to expect that a User that submitted a VIX future-option to request nullification of the VX options trade in accordance with current Exchange Rules. If the VX future component does not execute, rather than require the User that submitted the VIX future-option order to contact the Exchange to request nullification of the VIX option component execution, the proposed rule eliminates the requirement for the User to make such request. Instead, the proposed rule change provides that the Exchange will automatically nullify the VIX option transaction if the VX future component does not execute. The Exchange believes such nullification without a request from the User is consistent with the purpose of VIX future-option orders, as contingent execution at or near the same time (and thus reduction in price and execution risk) is one of the primary goals of VIX future-option orders (as further discussed below).
Additionally, the Exchange believes the availability of VIX future-option orders will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it will provide investors with an alternative to the OTC market for investment strategies comprised of instruments (
The Commission previously determined that permitting investors to submit an order for execution to Cboe that included components subject to different regulatory jurisdictions was consistent with the Act.
• The proposed rule change would permit electronic execution only.
• The proposed rule change does not create a separate pit on the Exchange's trading floor for the related futures as the prior proposal did. Given the advances in electronic trading (and the fact that many futures exchanges no longer have open outcry trading), the Exchange believes this is no longer necessary to permit VIX future-option orders.
These differences have no impact on the fundamental attributes of the underlying product that the Commission approved in 1988 and that the Exchange proposes in this filing, which is a multi-part order comprised of an option and a related future submitted to the Exchange for pricing as a package, with execution of each component contingent on the other. When approving the prior proposal, the Commission stated that permitting execution of inter-regulatory spreads (including for hedging purposes) on the Exchange would “contribute to the mechanism of a free and open market by enhancing . . . market makers' ability to hedge their positions with futures [and] enable market makers to better accommodate customer orders and to provide deeper and tighter markets.”
Further, as discussed above, the proposed rules regarding the handling and execution of VIX future-option orders are also substantially similar to that of stock-option orders,
Additionally, the proposed rule change provides that the Exchange will communicate to CFE directly the VX components of a VIX future-option order for execution, and CFE will communicate to the Exchange directly any execution information. This is different than what occurs today with respect to stock-option orders, for which a designated broker communicates this information to and receives this information from the stock trading venue. However, as is required for stock-option orders, the Exchange will require Users that are not CFE members to enter into a brokerage agreement with an FCM/IB, which will serve as the routing broker for such User. Ultimately, because the Exchange already has connectivity to CFE, the Exchange will act as the conduit for the electronic transmissions of the VX components and execution information on behalf of each designated FCM/IB. The FCM/IB designated by a User will continue to act as agent and broker for that User's side of the VX futures component of the transaction on CFE and will continue to be the executing CFE member for that side of the VX futures component of the transaction on CFE. The Exchange will merely act as the designated FCM/IB's conduit rather than the designated FCM/IB communicating directly with CFE. Given that the Exchange has established connectivity to CFE, the Exchange believes this is an efficient approach that will further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, as it will provide for direct messaging between two parties (the Exchange and CFE) rather than take additional steps to communicate information to and from a third party (the designated FCM/IB).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to make VIX Future-Option Orders eligible for FLEX trading and related changes will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by providing investors with an additional on-exchange vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with VIX derivatives. By providing investors an exchange-traded environment for customized strategies, such as those investors may trade in the OTC market, the Exchange would be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. Further it will create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility for investors. FLEX trading for VIX Future-Option Orders may also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of FLEX options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange offer products that it understands are currently used in the OTC market. The proposed rule change to prevent customization of the VX future leg(s) of a FLEX VIX Future-Option Order is consistent with the Act, because the terms of VX future leg(s) are dictated by CFE and its rules and thus subject to CFTC jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it will provide investors with a competitive and efficient market mechanism for executing investment strategies comprised of VX futures and VIX options on the Exchange, which will provide a venue for order exposure and price discovery (with respect to the VIX options legs, as the VX futures legs may execute only at the prices specified by the User upon order entry). These are bona fide investment strategies that reduce market participants' risk and facilitate hedging. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to investors' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. When Congress charged the Commission with supervising the development of a “national market system” for securities, Congress stated its intent that the “national market system evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed.
While a VIX future-option order contains a component that is not a security, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may be approved as consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission's primary purposes are to protect investors and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
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 intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because VIX future-option orders will be available to all TPHs and will execute in the same manner. VIX future-option orders will be available to all Users on a voluntary basis, and Users will not be required to use VIX future-option orders to execute investment strategies comprised of option and future components. Users may continue to execute these strategies as they do today by entering a VIX option order on the Exchange and separately executing the VX future component on CFE. For Users that elect to use the proposed functionality, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would reduce price and execution risk that currently exists when executing these strategies. The Exchange understands investors currently execute investment strategies comprised of VIX option and VX future components today. Investors may continue to do so; however, the proposed rule change merely provides them with a simpler, more efficient, transparent, and competitive execution mechanism for hedging and other investment strategies that contain VIX options and VX futures components.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because other options exchanges may propose similar functionality (and previously have, as noted above). The proposed rule change is intended to provide investors with an alternative to execute these investment strategies through separate transactions or in the unregulated and opaque OTC market by providing investors with the ability to execute these strategies in a single transaction in an exchange environment. The Exchange believes this would result in increased market transparency, enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions, and heightened contra-party creditworthiness. The proposed rule change is designed to provide investors with a more efficient and lower risk mechanism to execute investment strategies comprised of futures and options components, and ultimately the Exchange believes it may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
As discussed above, the Exchange states that investors currently execute orders in VIX options and VX futures to hedge, manage risk, or implement other
VIX future-option orders would be conforming complex orders under the Exchange's rules.
VIX future-option orders would be eligible only for electronic processing and must be entered as Day or IOC.
The VIX option legs of VIX future-option orders would be subject to the same priority requirements that currently apply to stock-option orders and other complex orders. The VIX option leg of a VIX future-option order with one option leg may not trade at a price worse than the individual component price on the Simple Book or at the same price as a Priority Customer order on the Simple Book.
The Exchange may make VIX future-option orders available for FLEX trading.
The Clearing Editor functionality in Exchange Rule 6.6 allows TPHs to update certain information with respect to executed trades on their trading date and revise them for clearing.
The proposal amends Exchange Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07(c) to treat VIX future-option orders in the same manner as stock-option orders for purposes of the Exchange's Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error provisions, which should help to ensure objectivity, transparency, and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions involving VIX future-option orders.
The execution of the VX futures component of a VIX future-option will be subject to CFE's rules, including informational and reporting time requirements, risk controls, and price restrictions.
The proposal establishes a mechanism designed to create an efficient process for executing VIX future-option orders. The proposed process for routing the VX futures component of a VIX future-option order to CFE is designed to facilitate the execution of the VX leg(s) of a VIX future-option order. The nullification of the VIX option component(s) of a VX future-option order if the VX future component(s) cannot execute will help to ensure that investors do not receive an incomplete execution that is inconsistent with their investment strategy in entering a VIX future-option order. Accordingly, the proposal should reduce the execution and price risks associated with the current process of effectuating a trading strategy involving VIX options and VX futures through separate and unrelated trades on Cboe and CFE.
Activity related to the execution of the option component(s) of VIX future-option orders would be subject to Commission jurisdiction, and activity related to the execution of the VX futures component(s) of VIX future-option orders would be subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC. The Exchange would regulate conduct relating to the VIX options legs of VIX future-option orders and CFE would regulate conduct relating to the VX futures legs of VIX future-option orders, with each exchange bringing disciplinary actions for violations of its rules.
The Exchange states that the Exchange and CFE have an existing information sharing agreement that encompasses information relating to the proposed VIX future-option orders and trades, which would allow for the sharing of information between the Exchange and CFE and would permit the Exchange to have access to all order, trade, regulatory, and other data relating to VIX future-option orders and trades.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 1 in the
Amendment No. 1 raises no novel regulatory issues that have not previously been subject to comment, as it narrows or further addresses aspects of the original proposal that were subject to comment without altering the proposal's core purpose of allowing for VIX future-option orders. Indeed, without altering the purpose of the proposal, Amendment No. 1 strengthens the proposal by providing additional clarity and support. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to extend trading hours for certain eligible equity options and make related conforming changes.
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 had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE American has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to adopt extended hours trading for certain eligible equity
The Exchange proposes to amend the Initial Filing to: (1) extend all proposed eligibility criteria to options overlying an ETP; (2) detail assessment of Market Maker Quoting obligations during Extended Hours Trading; (3) eliminate accelerated eligibility for certain equity options with underlying securities recently listed as the result of an initial public offering; (4) address changes in determining Auction Imbalances for the Core Trading Session; and (5) amend order types to be available during Extended Hours Trading.
Currently, option transactions may only be made on the Exchange during the Core Trading Session (
The Exchange believes there is investor demand to trade equity options outside of the Core Trading Session. Securities trading has become a global industry, but investors located outside of the United States may choose not to access U.S. markets during regular trading hours with which the Core Trading Session aligns. The Exchange further believes there is global demand from investors for options on equities for various investment purposes. However, given that equity options trade only during regular trading hours, it is difficult for non-U.S. investors to participate. Additionally, U.S. investors that trade in equities outside of regular trading hours are unable to access the equities options for hedging and other purposes as part of their investment strategies during trading sessions outside of the Exchange's Core Trading Session.
In response, the Exchange proposes to designate equity options that meet certain criteria as eligible for trading outside of its Core Trading Session. Doing so would help align trading in such products to the expanded trading that already occurs for the underlying securities and help meet investor demand to use these products outside of regular trading hours and keep pace with the continuing internationalization of securities markets.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 901.1NY (Trading Sessions) to establish two additional separate trading sessions to its Core Trading Session: (i) an early trading session of 7:30 a.m. to 9:25 a.m. (the “Early Trading Session”); and (ii) a late trading session of 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. (the “Late Trading Session”).
Proposed Rule 901.1NY(b) will require that any order entered on the Exchange must include a designation for which trading session(s) the order will remain in effect. Any order without a designation will be rejected. In addition, unless otherwise specified, an order designated for a later trading session will be accepted but not eligible to trade until the designated trading session begins. An order designated for trading session(s) that already ended will be rejected.
Proposed Rule 901.1NY(c) will specify the interaction between the different trading sessions and holidays and shortened trading days. Proposed Rule 901.1NY(c)(1) will provide that if there is no Core Trading Session, there will be no Early Trading Session and no Late Trading Session. Proposed Rule 901.1(c)(2) will provide that on a trading day with a shortened Core Trading Session (
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new Rule 901.2NY to establish trading during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session, which the proposed Rule defines as “Extended Hours Trading.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Exchange recognizes that the proposed Extended Hours Trading is shorter than the extended trading hours for equities, which may commence as early as 4:00 a.m. and conclude as late as 8:00 p.m.
The Exchange believes that the shorter Extended Hours Trading running from 7:30 a.m. to 9:25 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., rather than hours that align with the full extended trading hours available to the underlying equities, is appropriate because of the lack of industry experience with extended hours trading for equity options that are physically-settled. Limiting the extended window of time for equity options allows for a paced introduction of this new type of trading session for equity options. The limited hours for Extended Hours Trading will allow the Exchange to monitor and assess the development and functioning of Extended Hours Trading markets for equity options. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed timeframe for Extended Hours Trading for equity options can be supported by Market Makers, Specialists and e-Specialists (collectively “Specialists”), clearing firms, and other market participants from a personnel coverage perspective.
Extended Hours Trading will allow market participants to engage in trading designated equity options in conjunction with the trading in the underlying securities during these hours. However, since trading in such options is a new initiative, the Exchange proposes to limit the number of equity option classes that may be designated for Extended Hours Trading to 100 option classes. The limit is intended to allow the Exchange to monitor and assess the development and functioning of the new Extended Hours Trading for equity options within a controlled group of equity options initially.
Accordingly, as set forth in proposed Rule 901.2NY(c), only multiply-listed option classes designated for trading
The criteria and the limit are intended to allow the Exchange to monitor and assess the development and functioning of the Extended Hours Trading markets for equity options within a limited group of equity options initially. In particular, proposed Rule 901.2NY(c) will establish specific eligibility criteria for an equity option class to be eligible for Extended Hours Trading. Accordingly, as proposed, the Exchange may designate as eligible for trading during Extended Hours Trading up to 100 multiply-listed equity option classes that satisfy the following criteria:
(i) the option has an average daily volume of 150,000 contracts;
(ii) the underlying equity to the option has a $50 billion market capitalization; and
(iii) the underlying equity to the option has an average daily trading volume of 10 million shares.
The Exchange believes these criteria will help ensure equity options trading during Extended Hours Trading will have sufficient demand and liquidity to support the options markets during the Early and Late Trading Sessions. Additionally, the chosen criteria limits the initial number of equity options eligible for extended trading hours to those most likely to have the most liquidity and avoids options with underlying securities that may have temporarily high volume or market capitalization.
For the initial process to determine the equity options that meet the criteria in proposed Rule 901.2NY(c), the Exchange will use data from the nearest six-month period ending either June 30 or December 31 prior to launch of equity options trading during Extended Hours Trading. The initial list of options designated for trading in extended trading hours sessions will be announced via the Exchange's Trader Update, as will the first day of trading for equity options during Extended Hours Trading.
Thereafter, the Exchange will identify on a semiannual basis (following each January 1 and July 1) the option classes meeting the criteria in proposed Rule 901.2NY(c) and select up to 100 of such option classes to be designated for trading during Extended Hours Trading. However, the Exchange has discretion to determine which of the eligible option classes will be designated to trade during Extended Hours Trading. The Exchange is not obligated to include all options that meet the criteria for Extended Hours Trading eligibility, and the number of designated equity options may be less than 100 option classes.
The Exchange will conduct a review twice per year to reassess the list of eligible equity options. The Exchange will designate equity options eligible for trading during Extended Hours Trading and publish the updated list of designated equity options via Trader Update. Specifically, as set forth in proposed Rule 901.2NY(c)(2) the Exchange will determine semi-annually the underlying securities that satisfy the eligibility criteria in subparagraph (c) by using trading statistics for the previous six-month period.
If, following the semiannual review, an option that was previously designated for trading in extended trading hours no longer meets the criteria in proposed Rule 901.2NY(c), the Exchange will identify any such equity option class and provide the last day of trading during Extended Hours trading for each such option class in a Trader Update. Equity options identified as no longer meeting eligibility requirements for trading during Extended Hours Trading will be removed from Extended Hours Trading within 18 months of the determination that the option class no longer meets the eligibility criteria, and the last day of trading for any such equity option class during Extended Hours Trading will be communicated via Trader Update.
Providing a notice of removal of an equity option class from Extended Hours Trading up to 18 months after the date the option class is determined to be no longer eligible for extended trading hours sessions will avoid sudden market disturbances resulting from the abrupt removal of any such option from Extended Hours Trading. Allowing the Exchange to determine a removal date within 18 months ensures that, except for certain longer dated series, open interest existing in the equity option class to be removed from Extended Hours Trading will have generally expired. Additionally, the 18-month period will allow for two additional semiannual review cycles during which equity options previously designated for removal may subsequently meet eligibility criteria again and consequently may continue to trade during Extended Hours Trading pursuant to new Rule 901.2NY(c)(3)(iii).
Whereas the removal process established in new Rule 901.2NY(c)(3) is intended to provide an extended time period for the removal of equity options to avoid sudden market disruptions, the Exchange acknowledges that certain conditions, although unlikely, may warrant an acceleration of removal of an equity option class from Extended Hours Trading. Consequently, new Rule 901.2NY(c)(3)(ii) allows the Exchange to remove an equity option class from trading during Extended Hours Trading prior to the announced removal date if the Exchange observes limited or no market activity during Extended Hours Trading for the option class. If such a condition is observed, the Exchange may remove the option class from trading during Extended Hours Trading with at least seven days' notice. The Exchange may remove the option class from Extended Hours Trading prior to the removal date by issuing a Trader Update designating a new removal date for the option class from Extended Hours Trading.
Additionally, pursuant to proposed Rule 901.2NY(c)(3)(iv), the Exchange may remove any option class from trading in Extended Hours Trading for any reason with at least 30 days' notice. The Exchange expects to use such authority in limited situations, such as in response to Market Maker or Specialist preference or concern regarding continued extended trading hours sessions in a particular option class or the announcement of an
In this instance, eligible equity options will not be counted against the 100-option class limit proposed in Rule 901.2NY(c). The Exchange believes that the exclusion from the 100-option class limit of such equity options initially traded during Extended Hours Trading on another options exchange is appropriate for competitive purposes since such listings can indicate the continued expansion of equity options trading outside of regular trading hours, which align with the Exchange's Core Trading Session.
Proposed Rule 901.2NY(i) will provide that expiring equity options eligible for trading during Extended Hours Trading shall continue to trade through the Late Trading Session. This is consistent with American-style physical settlement and will allow participants to close expiring positions rather than take or deliver shares.
As set forth above, any order entered on the Exchange must include a designation for which trading session(s) the order will remain in effect.
The queuing for order and market maker quotes for both the Early Trading Session and the Core Trading Session will begin, simultaneously, at 6:00 a.m. and there will be no opening auction for the Late Trading Session orders. The Late Trading Session will occur simultaneously with late trading Options on ETFs and ETNs, which will be in their Core Trading Session. These ETF and ETN options will not have a Late Trading Session. As noted above, participants may designate orders for participation in certain sessions. Any order designated for less than all sessions will not be included in any session for which it is not eligible.
Market Makers and Specialists will not designate their quotes for a specific trading session. Quotes will persist across sessions. However, to address the potential for different quoting widths and varied Market Maker and Specialist participation across sessions, the Early Trading Session will conclude at 9:25 a.m. (five minutes before the opening of the Core Trading Session).
The Exchange expects reduced liquidity and wider spreads during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session (
Pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (“Linkage Plan”),
Rule 964NYP(k) addresses order routing away from the Exchange to promote compliance with the Linkage Plan. As the Exchange may route orders during the Early Trading Session and Late Trading Session in multiply-listed options if another U.S. options exchange lists the same options outside of the Core Trading Session, Rule 964NYP(k) will apply during Extended Hours Trading (
The Exchange will replicate its current multiply-listed opening process and apply it to the Early Trading Session.
With the implementation of the Early Trading Session, the Exchange will have access to additional data (
As it relates to Auction Triggers, as that term is defined in Rule 952NYP, the trigger for the Early Open Auction will differ from Core Open Auction. Specifically, the Core Open Auction begins when the Primary Market first disseminates at or after 9:30 a.m. both a two-sided quote and a trade that is at or within the quote.
Pursuant to Rule 924NY, ATP Holders including Market Makers must have a Letter of Guarantee from a Clearing Member authorized by the OCC in order to make any transaction on the Floor of the Exchange or through the facilities of the Exchange. Accordingly, as set forth in proposed Rule 901.2NY(j), any ATP Holder with an effective Letter of Guarantee issued by a Clearing Member and approved by the Options Clearing Corporation may participate in Extended Hours Trading. Participation is voluntary and no additional authorization with the Exchange is required.
Similarly, the participation of a Market Maker appointed in a class of options contracts pursuant to Rule 923NY in the Early Trading Session or the Late Trading Session is voluntary. Accordingly, as set forth in proposed Rule 901.2NY(g), while Market Maker appointments will apply across all three trading sessions and the Market Maker assigned to an option class eligible for trading during the Core Trading Session will automatically receive the appointment in that class during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session, a Market Maker is not required to enter quotations.
However, if a Market Maker chooses to enter quotations in its assigned class during the Early Trading Session or the Late Trading Session it will be subject to its continuous quoting obligation (Rule 925.1NYP). Market Makers will not have a way to designate quotes for a specific session. Upon receipt by the Exchange, the quote will be available for all three sessions, as there will not be automatic cancellation of quotes at the conclusion of a session.
A Market Maker that does not enter quotations during the Early Trading Session or Late Trading Session will not be subject to the continuous quoting obligation. Nevertheless, nothing will relieve the Market Maker of its continuous quoting obligations during the Core Trading Session.
Finally, Specialist allocations will persist across all three sessions. However, like Market Maker assignments, the participation of a Specialist assigned in a class eligible to participate in trading during Extended Hours Trading is voluntary. Accordingly, as set forth in proposed Rule 901.2NY(h)(2), a Specialist allocated such an allocated class may opt out of participating in the Early Trading Session and/or the Late Trading Session.
Compliance with these requirements is determined by reviewing the aggregate of quoting in assigned options series for the ATP Holder across all trading sessions. Accordingly, if a Market Maker chooses to quote during Extended Hours Trading, their quoting time during the additional session(s) will be aggregated with their Core Trading Session quoting time (
Pursuant to Rule 925.1NYP, Specialists and Market Makers must provide continuous two-sided quotations throughout the trading day in its appointed issues for 90% and 60%, respectively, for the session(s) in which they quote. For purposes of determining compliance with the continuous quoting obligation, a Specialist's and Market Maker's quoting activity will be measured in the aggregate across all trading sessions in which they quote. The Exchange calculates Specialist and Market Maker compliance across all appointed issues rather than on a class-by-class basis, which does not vary based on the trading sessions in which a Specialist or Market Maker chooses to participate.
The Exchange believes that calculating compliance across all appointed issues appropriately reflects different liquidity and participation dynamics of the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session. The Exchange expects lower levels of trading during these sessions as compared to the Core Trading Session, which could result in potentially lower liquidity (including fewer Specialists and Market Makers quoting), higher volatility and wider spreads. However, the Exchange believes that applying the continuous quoting requirements for Specialists and Market Makers across all classes and trading sessions is a fair and efficient way for the Exchange to evaluate compliance with continuance quoting obligations. It will also benefit Specialists and Market Makers by providing some flexibility to choose which series in their appointed classes they will continuously quote—increasing continuous quoting in in one series while allowing for a decrease in another, which is important for classes that have relatively few series and may prevent Specialists and Market Makers from reaching the overall continuous quoting obligations while failing to achieve it in more than one series in an appointed class.
This flexibility, however, does not diminish the Specialist's or Market Maker's obligation to continuously quote in a significant percentage of series for a significant part of the trading day. Thus, applying the existing quoting obligations for all trading sessions will promote active markets in these extended trading hours sessions. Specifically, this approach is intended to help reduce the rigidity of quoting requirements for a Specialist or Market Maker of multiple sessions if trading activity is less in one of the sessions. By requiring that a Specialist or Market
Proposed Rule 901.2NY(f) will require ATP Holders to make certain disclosures to customers regarding material trading risks that exist during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session (
Proposed Rule 901.2NY(f) will provide that no ATP Holder may accept an order from a customer for execution during Extended Hours Trading without disclosing to that customer that trading during Extended Hours Trading involves, among other things, material trading risks, including the possibility of lower liquidity, high volatility, changing prices, an exaggerated effect from news announcements, wider spreads. The proposed rule provides an example of these disclosures in subparagraphs (1) through (7). The Exchange believes that requiring ATP Holders to disclose these risks to non-member customers will facilitate informed participation in Extended Hours Trading. The required disclosures are materially identical to the disclosure requirements imposed by the Cboe during its Global Trading Hours.
Due to differences in the trading process during the Core Trading Session and Extended Hours Trading, ATP Holders that accept orders from customers during Extended Hours Trading will be required to make certain disclosures to those customers. The requirements addressing the differences between the trading sessions are consistent with the Exchange's goal of permitting ATP Holders, that choose to do so, to trade during Extended Hours Trading without imposing additional burdens on those that do not.
Accordingly, the Exchange will minimize ATP Holder's preparation efforts to the greatest extent possible by allowing ATP Holders to trade during Extended Hours Trading with the same ports and data feeds and employing existing session designations used during the Core Trading Session. Session designation will be controlled via existing order tags; order processing will operate in the same manner during Extended Hours Trading as it does during the Core Trading Session. There will be no changes to the ranking, display, or allocation rules.
Similarly, there will be no changes to the processes for clearing, settlement, exercise, and expiration.
In addition, the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) will accommodate equity options during Extended Hours trading on the existing lines used during the Core Trading Session. With the exception of imbalance messages, Exchange proprietary data feeds will also be disseminated during Extended Hours Trading using the same formats and delivery mechanisms with which the Exchange disseminates during the Core Trading Session. Finally, price protection mechanisms, participant-level risk controls and obvious error adjustment processes employed during the Core Trading Session shall apply during Extended Hours Trading.
The Exchange understands that systems and other issues may arise and is committed to resolving those issues as quickly as possible, including during Extended Hours Trading. Thus, the Exchange will have appropriate staff available as necessary during Extended Hours Trading to handle any technical and support issues that may arise during those hours. Additionally, the Exchange will have personnel available to address any trading issues that may arise during Extended Hours Trading. The Exchange also will have appropriately trained, qualified regulatory staff in place during Extended Hours Trading to the extent it deems necessary to satisfy its self-regulatory obligations. The Exchange believes its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor trading of eligible equity options during Extended Hours Trading.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a rules framework to support the Exchange's introduction of Extended Hours Trading, which the
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 operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Extended Hours Trading is a competitive initiative designed to improve the Exchange's marketplace for the benefit of investors. The proposed rule changes provide a new investment opportunity within the options trading industry that more closely aligns the Exchange's trading hours with extended trading hours of stock exchanges and other options exchanges.
The proposed rule change also provides a mechanism for the Exchange to more effectively compete with exchanges located outside the United States. Global markets have become increasingly interdependent and linked through improved communications technology. This has been accompanied by an increased desire among investors to have access to U.S.-listed exchange products outside of regular trading hours, and the Exchange believes this desire extends to equity options. The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonably designed to provide an appropriate mechanism for trading outside the Core Trading Session while providing for appropriate Exchange oversight and surveillance pursuant to the Act.
As noted above, the Commission has authorized stock exchanges and a small number of options exchanges to be open for trading outside of regular trading hours pursuant to the Act.
With few exceptions, options traded during Extended Hours Trading will be subject to all other rules applicable to options on the Exchange, including, without limitation, listing rules and business conduct rules. These rules have all been previously filed with the Commission and established as being consistent with the goals of the Act. For example, during Extended Hours Trading, rules that protect public customers, impose best execution requirements, and prohibit acts and practices that are inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade or are otherwise fraudulent or manipulative practices. Similarly, the proposed rule changes offer the same opportunity for price improvement during Extended Hours Trading and applies the same allocation and priority rules that are available on the Exchange during the Core Trading Session. Thus, the Exchange believes that, during Extended Hours Trading, market participants will continue to be protected by the Exchange's rules that promote just and equitable principles of trade and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts.
Similarly, the proposed rule change requires disclosures that clearly identify the ways in which trading during Extended Hours Trading differs from trading during the Core Trading Session and highlight any related risks. Specifically, the proposed rule change will note that trading during Extended Hours Trading involves material risks, such as lower liquidity, higher volatility, changing prices, unlinked markets, and exaggerated effect from news announcements. This ensures that investors would be aware of any differences among trading sessions before being allowed to participate in Extended Hours Trading. Consistent with the goals of investor protection, the Exchange will not allow Market Orders during Extended Hours Trading due to the expected increased volatility and decreased liquidity during those hours.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information. As noted above, trading during Extended Hours Trading will use the same ports and data feeds and order processing will operate in the same manner. Similarly, there will be no changes to the processes for clearing, settlement, exercise, and expiration. Finally, OPRA will accommodate equity options during Extended Hours Trading on the existing lines used during the Core Trading Session and, with the exception of imbalance messages, Exchange proprietary data feeds will also be disseminated during Extended Hours Trading using the same formats and delivery mechanisms with which the Exchange disseminates during the Core Trading Session.
The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 11A of the Act and Regulation NMS thereunder, because it provides for the dissemination of transaction and quotation information during Extended Hours Trading through OPRA, pursuant to the OPRA Plan, which the Commission approved and indicated as consistent with the Act. As noted above, the Exchange will also comply with the Linkage Plan for all eligible option classes that list and trade on another U.S. options exchange outside of regular trading hours. The proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because, as noted above, other options exchanges currently offer trading in certain index options outside of regular trading hours.
Price protection mechanisms and participant-level risk controls employed during the Core Trading Session will apply during Early Trading Session with necessary session-based modifications made. With respect to this, the Exchange will ensure that adequate staffing is available during Extended Hours Trading to provide appropriate trading support during those hours, as well as Exchange personnel to make any necessary determinations under the rules during Extended Hours Trading. The Exchange is also committed to fulfilling its obligations as a self-regulatory organization at all times, including during Extended Hours Trading. The Exchange believes its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor trading in eligible equity options during Extended Hours Trading.
In addition, while their participation is likewise optional, Market Makers and Specialists will be subject to continuous quoting obligations during Extended Hours Trading with respect to their option class appointments as they are during the Core Trading Session. In such cases, the Market Maker's and Specialist's quoting activity would be aggregated for all trading sessions to determine whether they met their continuous quoting obligations.
The Exchange believes that these provisions reflect different liquidity and participation dynamics of Extended Hours Trading and the Core Trading Session. The Exchange expects lower levels of trading during the Early Trading Session and the Late Trading Session (
If the Exchange required Market Makers and Specialists to meet continuous quoting obligations during the Early Trading Session and/or the Late Trading Session even though they chose not to participate in that session, the Market Maker and Specialist could be penalized for choosing not to quote during either session while nonetheless meeting their continuous quoting obligations during the Core Trading Session. The Exchange believes that the aggregate trading session-based calculation promotes clarity and would encourage Market Maker and Specialist participation in either the Early Trading Session or the Late Trading Session without inadvertently penalizing them if they choose not to participate in either session for that day.
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 intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as all ATP Holders with access to the Exchange may trade during Extended Hours Trading using the same ports and data feeds they use during the Core Trading Session, minimizing any preparation efforts necessary to participate during Extended Hours Trading.
ATP Holders will be authorized, but not required, to participate in trading activity during Extended Hours Trading. As such, the proposal does not impose additional burdens on an ATP Holder, particularly those that do not elect to participate. The Exchange believes the obligations imposed on ATP Holders to be eligible to trade during Extended Hours Trading is an appropriate balance of obligations of additional requirements with the benefits of additional trading sessions.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change is a new competitive initiative that will benefit the marketplace and investors. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will enhance competition by providing new trading sessions to investors that other options exchanges currently are not providing. Additionally, all options exchanges are free to compete in the same manner, including Cboe and MRX, which recently received approval for extended trading hours similar to those being proposed by the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified and superseded by Amendment No. 2 (“Amended Proposal”), is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Amended Proposal largely harmonizes with extended-session trading frameworks already approved for equity options on other exchanges.
These aspects of the Amended Proposal do not raise novel regulatory issues that the Commission has not considered previously,
Other, discrete aspects of the Amended Proposal that depart from what is already provided in other exchange rules are consistent with the Act. The Exchange has proposed its own terminology for classifying its extended trading sessions,
With respect to the collection and dissemination of quotation and transaction information during the proposed extended sessions, the Exchange states that OPRA will accommodate equity options during extended hours trading on the existing
As the Commission stated previously, the Exchange's timing for the commencement of its proposed extended trading sessions must be consistent with Sections 6(b)(1), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8) of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the Amended Proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 2 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified and superseded by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No. 2 in the
The Commission therefore finds that Amendment No. 2 does not raise any novel regulatory issues substantially different from those that had been previously subject to comment and is reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to adopt a new rule governing the operation of a proposed Step Up Mechanism (“SUM”) on the Exchange and to make conforming changes in other rules. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 5.35 (Step Up Mechanism (“SUM”)), which sets forth the operational framework for SUM, a feature within the System that would provide automated order handling in designated classes for qualifying orders that are not automatically executed by the System. The proposed functionality is substantively identical to the Step Up Mechanism of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”).
Proposed Rule 5.35(a) sets forth the eligibility requirements for SUM. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange will determine
Proposed Rule 5.35(b) describes the order handling and response process during a SUM exposure period. Upon receipt of a SUM-eligible order, the System electronically exposes the order at the NBBO immediately upon receipt. The order is exposed for a period of time determined by the Exchange
Proposed Rule 5.35(c) describes how exposed orders are allocated following the exposure period.
Proposed Rule 5.35(d) describes the circumstances under which the exposure period terminates prior to its expiration. In addition to the receipt of a response or unrelated order or quote to trade the entire exposed order at the NBBO or better, the exposure period also terminates prior to its expiration, and the System processes the exposed order in accordance with proposed paragraph (c), if during the exposure period (1) the NBBO updates such that the exposed order is no longer marketable against the prevailing NBBO; or (2) the Exchange is displaying an
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide all Users with the opportunity to improve their prices and “step up” to meet the NBBO in order to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. This will allow the market participant sending an order to the Exchange to increase its chances of receiving an execution at the Exchange (the market participant's chosen venue) instead of having the order be routed to another exchange. This “step up” process allows market participants to account for factors beyond just disseminated prices, such as execution costs, system reliability, and quality of service, when determining the exchange to which to route an order. A market participant that prefers the Exchange due to some combination of these other factors will know that, even if the Exchange is not displaying a price that is the NBBO, the market participant may still receive an execution at the Exchange because another User may “step up” to match the NBBO. Further, SUM and the “step up” process enable Users to add liquidity that is available to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. Indeed, when a User on the Exchange “steps up” to match the NBBO that is displayed on another exchange, more contracts may be executed at this NBBO price on the Exchange than are available at that same price on the other exchange.
In connection with the proposed SUM functionality, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.21(b)(2) to indicate that a description of how SUM will operate during a limit up-limit down state is described in proposed Rule 5.35. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.25(c) (Auction Response Processing) to add a reference to SUM. Currently, Rule 5.25(c) provides that at the conclusion of an auction response or exposure period, the System will continue to process any messages in its inbound queue that were received by the System before the end of the auction response or exposure period for up to an Exchange-determined period of time on a class-by-class basis, not to exceed 100 milliseconds, which shall be announced with reasonable advance notice via Exchange Notice. The proposed amendment adds SUM to the list of auction mechanisms to which this provision applies, so that SUM exposure periods receive the same message processing treatment as COA response periods.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.34(c)(4)(B)(i) (Risk Monitor Mechanism) to add a reference to SUM auctions. Currently, Rule 5.34(c)(4)(B)(i) allows a TPH to specify whether volume or executions in COAs count toward the TPH's underlying, EFID, or EFID Group limit (on both an interval or absolute basis). The proposed amendment adds SUM auctions alongside COAs in this provision, so that TPHs have the same ability to manage their risk exposure from SUM executions as they do for COA executions.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing an additional mechanism for price improvement on qualifying orders. SUM gives market participants the opportunity to compete for order flow at improved prices, which benefits investors by increasing the potential for executions at the NBBO or better. Specifically, the SUM exposure period permits all Users to respond with improved pricing for orders that would otherwise be executed at the Exchange's BBO or routed to another exchange. By creating a competitive exposure period, SUM incentivizes liquidity providers on the Exchange to offer improved pricing to retain order flow, which benefits investors through better execution quality.
The Exchange further believes that SUM removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. SUM complements the national market system framework by providing an intermediate step between local execution and intermarket routing that may result in price improvement for the entering order. Rather than immediately routing an order to an away exchange when the Exchange's BBO is not the NBBO, SUM gives Users the opportunity to match or improve the NBBO, which may result in a better price for the entering order and promotes a more efficient allocation of liquidity across the national market system. As noted above, all executions resulting from SUM must comply with Chapter 5, Section E, which incorporates the intermarket linkage requirements applicable to the Exchange, including the Order Protection requirements set forth in Chapter 5, Section E of the Rulebook, and thus the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the national market system's intermarket protections. Orders that are not filled through SUM are routed to away exchanges displaying better prices, consistent with the Exchange's routing obligations. Accordingly, SUM does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete for order flow or execute orders at their displayed prices.
The Exchange also believes that SUM protects investors and the public interest because qualifying orders receive the benefit of a competitive exposure period before execution. The one-second maximum exposure period provides a meaningful but brief window for price improvement without unduly delaying execution. The proposed early termination conditions will cause the exposure period to conclude promptly when market conditions change, preventing stale exposures that could disadvantage the entering order. Additionally, the Exchange believes the restriction on initiating a SUM auction when the NBBO is crossed will protect investors from execution during periods of potential pricing uncertainty. SUM would provide eligible Users on the Exchange with the opportunity to improve their prices to match the NBBO to interact with orders sent to the Exchange. This will allow the market participant sending an order to the Exchange to increase its chances of receiving an execution at the Exchange (the market participant's chosen venue)
The proposed rule change is substantively the same as the rules of other options markets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While the Exchange determines eligible order size, type, and Capacity on a class-by-class basis, this flexibility is consistent with the Exchange's existing authority under other rules and is exercised uniformly for all similarly situated participants. All Users, including Priority Customers, non-Market Maker non-Priority Customers, and Market-Makers, may submit responses to the exposure message during the exposure period. The proposed step-up process is also voluntary, and all Users will have the ability to opt out of the process. As a result, for Users that opt out of the proposed step-up process, the proposed rule change will have no impact on them, and their orders will continue to be handled in the same manner as they are today.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change is substantively the same as rules of other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. By offering SUM, the Exchange provides an additional tool for price improvement that is available to all market participants. SUM promotes competition among liquidity providers by creating a brief window in which they can compete to offer improved prices for qualifying orders. This competitive dynamic may benefit orders submitted to the Exchange and ultimately investors by increasing the likelihood of executions of these orders at the NBBO or better. Without SUM, orders on the Exchange that could receive price improvement may instead be routed to away exchanges without the benefit of a local exposure period, potentially reducing the competitive incentives for Exchange participants to provide improved pricing.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to: (1) reduce the initiating and contra-side fees applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book and Trading Floor; (2) reduce the rebates applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book and Trading Floor; and (3) establish a tiered fee structure applicable to Trading Floor transactions where a Member firm directs a paired order to the Trading Floor, the agency order is a customer of the Member firm, and the contra-side of the transaction is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm, depending on certain breakup percentages and minimum sizes (all terms described below).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to: (1) reduce the initiating and contra-side fees applicable to Professional Customer
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 1)a)ii)-iii) and 1)c)ii)-iii) of the Fee Schedule to reduce the initiating and contra-side fees applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book and Trading Floor. Currently, the Exchange assesses Professional Customers the same initiating and contra-side fee of $0.12 per contract side for QCC and cQCC transactions that occur either on the Exchange's Electronic Book or on the Trading Floor. The Exchange now proposes to reduce this fee such that the Exchange will assess Professional Customers the same initiating and contra-side fee of $0.00 per contract side for QCC and cQCC transactions that occur either on the Exchange's Electronic Book or on the Trading Floor. The purpose of these changes is for business and competitive reasons. The proposed changes will also align the Exchange's fee for such transactions with the similar fee structures in place at other exchanges for both electronic and trading floor QCC (and/or cQCC) transactions for professional customer orders.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 1)a)ii)-iii) of the Fee Schedule to reduce the rebates applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book. Currently, for EEMs
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 1)c)ii)-iii) of the Fee Schedule to reduce the rebates applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Trading Floor. Currently, for Floor Brokers
The purpose of these changes is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange believes that even with the proposal to remove the rebate payable to an EEM (or Floor Broker) entering a Professional Customer order as part of a QCC or cQCC transaction (electronic or on the Trading Floor) where the contra-side is a Priority Customer or Professional Customer, the Exchange's QCC and cQCC rebates remain competitive with those of other exchanges for Professional Customer orders.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule to establish a tiered fee structure applicable to Trading Floor transactions where a Member firm directs a paired QFO or cQFO to the Trading Floor, the agency order is a customer of the Member firm, and the contra-side of the transaction is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm, depending on certain breakup percentages and minimum sizes.
For background, the Exchange assesses fees and applies rebates to both executed sides of the paired QFO or cQFO on the Trading Floor. cQFO fees and rebates are per executed side per leg. Floor Broker rebates are only payable on the Floor Brokers' billable sides. The rebates do not apply to Priority Customer, Professional Customer, Firm/Broker-Dealer Facilitating a Priority Customer or Professional Customer, competing Floor Broker orders, Floor Market Maker (sides) executions, and Firm (sides) executions where the Firm Fee Cap threshold has been met for the relevant Clearing Corporation
Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.25 per contract fee for QFO and cQFO transactions in SPY/QQQ/IWM, Penny classes (excluding SPY/QQQ/IWM), and non-Penny classes, for Away Market Maker, Firm, and Broker-Dealer origins. The Exchange does not assess a fee (or provide a rebate) for QFO and cQFO transactions in SPY/QQQ/IWM, Penny classes (excluding SPY/QQQ/IWM), and non-Penny classes, for Firm and Broker-Dealer origins that are facilitating a Priority Customer or Professional Customer order.
The Exchange now proposes to establish a new row in the table in Section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule that will apply to transactions for Away Market Maker facilitation of customer orders for the same Member firm. The Exchange proposes to specify in third explanatory paragraph below the table of fees in Section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule that the rates for Away Market Maker Facilitation will apply to any Trading Floor transaction where a Member firm directs a paired order to the Trading Floor, where the agency order is a customer of the Member firm, and where the contra-side of the transaction is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm. Further, the Away Market Maker firm must notify the Exchange for participation in the Away Market Maker Facilitation program.
The Exchange proposes to establish a new table at the end of the explanatory text in Section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule, which will be titled “Away Market Maker Facilitation Breakup Table” (referred to herein as the “Breakup Table”). The Breakup Table
The Exchange also proposes to add the new note “*” to the Breakup Table and the corresponding note below table, which will provide as follows:
* These rates only apply to QFO or cQFO orders that are not part of a QCC, cQCC or Strategy transaction. For QFO volume to count towards the calculation to qualify for these rates, the Away Market Maker must facilitate at least 1,000 initiating sides per order. For cQFO volume to count towards the calculation to qualify for these rates, the smallest leg must be at least 1,000 initiating sides per order. The order breakup percentage is calculated on a monthly basis.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the second sentence in the first paragraph of explanatory text below the tables in Section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule to specify that Floor Brokers will not be entitled to receive rebates from Away Market Maker Facilitation transactions. This reduced fee structure is similar in concept to another program offered by the Exchange, where the Exchange assesses a lower fee for a Firm or Broker-Dealer that facilitates a Priority Customer or Professional Customer QFO or cQFO (in that case, $0.00 per contract), and subsequently does not provide a rebate to the executing Floor Broker.
The purpose of these changes is for business and competitive reasons. The proposed Breakup Table provides the lower tiered fees that the Away Market Maker may be assessed instead of the fee that would otherwise apply to such Floor transactions,
The Exchange believes that the Breakup Table is similar in concept to a table that is currently in place at the Exchange's affiliate, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”), related to agency credits provided to Priority Customer orders entered into MIAX's cPRIME
The Exchange also believes the concept of offering discounted or tiered fees for the contra-side of the transaction is not new or novel. For example, BOX assesses discounted fees for certain contra-side orders submitted in the BOX Price Improvement Period (“PIP”) or Complex Order Price Improvement Period (“COPIP”) auctions.
The proposed changes are immediately effective.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based and singly-listed options, no single exchange had more than approximately 11-12% of the multiply-listed equity options market share for the month of July 2026.
The Exchange believes its proposal to reduce the initiating and contra-side fees applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book and Trading Floor is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it may further incentivize Professional Customer orders to be submitted as QCC and cQCC transactions. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, encourage Members to submit more Professional Customer orders, leading to increased liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are
The Exchange believes its proposal to reduce the rebates applicable to Professional Customer orders for QCC and cQCC transactions on the Exchange's Electronic Book and Trading Floor is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the changes are for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange believes that even with the proposal to remove the rebate payable to an EEM (or Floor Broker) entering a Professional Customer order as part of a QCC or cQCC transaction (electronic or on the Trading Floor) where the contra-side is a Priority Customer or Professional Customer, the Exchange's QCC and cQCC rebates remain competitive with those of other exchanges.
The Exchange believes its proposal to establish a tiered fee structure where a Member firm directs a paired QFO or cQFO to the Trading Floor, the agency order is a customer of the Member firm, and the contra-side of the transaction is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm, depending on certain breakup percentages and minimum sizes is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these changes are for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes may encourage Members to submit more customer orders to the Trading Floor where the contra-side is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm in order to be assessed the lower tiered fees than would otherwise apply to such transactions. The Exchange believes that this may, in turn, increase open outcry participation, which may promote increased executions on the Trading Floor to the benefit of all Floor Participants.
The Exchange believes this proposal is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is open to all Members that submit paired QFOs or cQFOs where the contra-side is an Away Market Maker of that Member firm, so long as the minimum size threshold is met. The Exchange believes the proposal to offer tiered reduced fees applicable to qualifying Away Market Maker transactions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all Away Market Makers are eligible for the reduced fees each month so long as they facilitate qualifying customer QFO or cQFO volume to the Floor and take the contra-side of the transaction.
The Exchange believes this proposed change is reasonable because it is based on similar fee and/or rebate structures already in place at the Exchange, its affiliate MIAX, as well as at least one other equity options exchange (
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal, which applies only to Away Market Makers facilitating eligible customer trades of certain sizes executed on the Trading Floor, is not unfairly discriminatory to other market participants because its purpose is to attract large order flow to the Trading Floor, where such orders can be better handled in comparison with electronic orders that are not negotiable. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's Floor Participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity, particularly as the Trading Floor continues to ramp up operations since its launch in September 2025.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to reduce the fees and rebates applicable to initiating and contra-side Professional Customer orders entered as part of a QCC or cQCC transaction do not impose any burden on inter-market competition because other exchanges have similar fee structures for similar transactions.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes reflect this competitive environment because the changes modify the Exchange's fees and rebates in a manner designed to continue to incent participants to direct trading interest to the Exchange (both electronically and on the Trading Floor), to provide liquidity and to attract additional order flow. To the extent that Away Market Makers are encouraged to facilitate more Priority Customer and Professional Customer QFOs and cQFOs, all Exchange market participants stand to benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional QCC and cQCC liquidity from Professional Customers (both electronically and on the Trading Floor), thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders.
The proposed change to establish a tiered fee structure where a Member firm directs a paired QFO or cQFO to the Trading Floor, the agency order is a customer of the Member firm, and the contra-side of the transaction is the Away Market Maker of the Member firm, depending on certain breakup percentages and minimum sizes is designed to attract additional customer order flow to the Trading Floor. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants on the Exchange and increased order flow would increase opportunities for execution of other trading interest.
The Exchange believes the proposal to offer tiered reduced fees applicable to qualifying Away Market Maker transactions does not impose any burden on intra-market competition because all Away Market Makers are eligible for the reduced fees each month so long as they facilitate qualifying customer QFO or cQFO volume to the Floor and take the contra-side of the transaction.
The Exchange believes this proposed change does not place any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it is based on similar fee and/or rebate structures already in place at the Exchange, its affiliate MIAX, as well as at least one other equity options exchange (
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal, which applies only to Away Market Makers facilitating customer trades of certain sizes executed on the Trading Floor, may enhance competition by attracting large order flow to the Trading Floor, where such orders can be better handled in comparison with electronic orders that are not negotiable. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all of the Exchange's Floor Participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity, particularly as the Trading Floor continues to ramp up operations since its launch in September 2025.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to implement an Exchange Order Entry Protocol Migration Program. The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce the Exchange's Order Entry Protocol Migration Program (the, “Program”). As described in further detail below, the Program is intended to provide Members,
Specifically, the proposed Program would provide that during an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration (“Migration”) a Member may establish a logical port to serve solely as a backup connection (“Redundant Logical Port”) during the Member's migration from a prior logical port protocol to the current logical port protocol (“New Logical Port”). The Redundant Logical Port may only be used for Exchange issues directly related to the Migration that prevent the Member from using their New Logical Port, thereby requiring the Member to instead use their Redundant Logical Port to enter orders and quotes into the System.
Following receipt of the credit request, the Exchange will review the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage for the period during which the Redundant Logical Port was designated as such and confirm the Member's compliance with (i)-(iv), above. If the Member satisfies these requirements the Exchange will apply a credit for the fees assessed for the Redundant Logical Port to the Member's invoice for the billing cycle following the Exchange's confirmation.
The Exchange is implementing the Program to credit logical port fees back to Members where their establishment of a Redundant Logical Port was solely for the purpose of creating backup logical ports to be used in the event a Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of their own, is not available for use, thereby preventing their access to the Exchange. In this regard, by creating Redundant Logical Ports, Members can responsibly ensure that they will maintain access to the Exchange even in the event where their New Logical Ports, which were created only because of an
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a credit of the applicable monthly logical port fees only where a Member establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with Migration. In this circumstance, the Member is adopting a New Logical Port not as a matter of its own business discretion, but solely because the Exchange has elected to migrate to an updated order entry protocol. The Redundant Logical Port that a Member maintains during such a transition is therefore directly attributable to an Exchange driven change and exists solely to preserve the Member's continued access to the Exchange in the event the Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of the Member, does not function as intended due to an Exchange Migration issue. By contrast, the Exchange does not believe it would be reasonable or appropriate to extend the credit to a logical port that a Member establishes in connection with a Member initiated change, because in that case the additional connection reflects the Member's own operational preferences and business decisions (
The Exchange further believes that the 30-calendar day period during which a Member may maintain a Redundant Logical Port and remain eligible for the credit is reasonable. A migration to a new order entry protocol presents operational risk for Members, and the 30-calendar day overlap period affords Members an adequate opportunity to establish, test, and gain confidence in the operation of their New Logical Port before decommissioning the logical port that supported the prior protocol. Permitting this limited period of overlap reduces the risk that a Member will prematurely cancel a functioning connection and thereby jeopardize its access to the Exchange during a critical transition. At the same time, the Exchange believes 30-calendar days is an appropriately tailored period that is long enough to allow Members to develop confidence in the New Logical Port, while ensuring that the credit remains tied to the migration and is not used to subsidize a Member's maintenance of duplicative connectivity on an indefinite basis. The Exchange also believes that measuring this period in calendar days, rather than business days, promotes clarity and ease of administration for both Members and the Exchange as it removes the need to have to account for holidays and weekends.
The Exchange also believes the proposed Program is reasonable because it is designed to alleviate the migration related costs that Members would otherwise incur solely as a result of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration and to promote Member confidence throughout the Migration process. Absent the Program, a Member that responsibly establishes a Redundant Logical Port to preserve its access to the Exchange during a Migration would be assessed the full monthly logical port fee for a connection that, absent an Exchange Migration related issue, it would not otherwise use. By crediting such fees, the Program removes a financial disincentive to maintaining a backup connection and encourages Members to take reasonable measures to ensure continuity of access during the transition. The Exchange believes that relieving Members of these costs, which arise only because of an Exchange initiated change, supports a more orderly Migration process, reduces operational risk to Members and the market, and thereby removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
For substantially the same reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Program applies uniformly to all similarly situated Members, as any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with an Exchange Migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the credit on the same basis, regardless of the type or size of the Member. The credit is not available on a discretionary or selective basis; rather, it is applied according to the objective, transparent criteria set forth in the proposed rule text, following the Exchange's review of the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage and confirmation of the Member's compliance with those criteria. Because the availability of the credit turns solely on the objective circumstances of an Exchange Migration and the Member's compliance with uniform conditions, the Exchange believes the proposed Program does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
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 proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the Redundant Logical Port credit is available to all Members and Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”)
Although the Program relates to logical ports established in connection with an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, it does not favor any particular type of market participant because any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an Exchange initiated migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the same credit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. The Program is limited to fees and credits for Redundant Logical Ports that Members establish solely because of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, and it does not disadvantage other exchanges. To the extent the Program makes BYX more attractive or favorable by reducing migration-related costs and supporting continuity of Member access to the Exchange, it will help to foster competition among exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule Equity 7, Sections 115 and 130 to (1) clarify the fees applicable to ports used to connect to the Exchange's Night Session trading environment, and (2) provide certain fee waivers designed to facilitate member participation in the Night Session, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Equity 7, Sections 115 and 130 to clarify the fees applicable to ports used to connect to the Exchange's Night Session
As described in the 23-5 Approval Order, the Exchange established the Night Session
The Night Session will begin on Sunday evenings at 9:00 p.m. and will be held Monday through Thursday.
The ports used during the Night Session are the same Financial Information Exchange (“FIX”), OUCH, CORE FIX, OUCH Purge, FIX Purge, and DROP connectivity products currently offered by the Exchange.
Current fees for ports under Equity 7, Sections 115 and 130 are $575 per port per month for FIX Trading, OUCH, and CORE FIX ports; $500 per port per month for OUCH Purge and FIX Purge ports; and $550 per port per month for DROP ports. To facilitate onboarding and incentivize participation in the Night Session in advance of the planned launch of Night Session trading on or about December 6, 2026,
The Exchange further proposes to provide that, beginning with the sixth port of each applicable port type, the Exchange will assess the standard fee otherwise applicable for such ports under Equity 7, Section 115 or Section 130, as applicable. The proposed rule text appears as explanatory footnote text in proposed Equity 7, Sections 115(b) and 115(g)(2).
With respect to other services offered, the Exchange operates two testing environments in separate locations.
Beginning with the sixth port of each applicable port type, the Exchange will assess the standard per-port, per-month fee otherwise applicable under Equity 7, Section 130(d)(1)(B).
Participation in NTF testing is voluntary. Members are not required to utilize NTF testing as a condition of participating in the Night Session. The Exchange nevertheless encourages members to test connectivity to the Night Session environment and is proposing the limited waiver to encourage such testing in advance of launch.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on September 1, 2026. The implementation date will permit members to order ports and establish connectivity in advance of the anticipated commencement of Night Session trading in December 2026.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because the ports used during the Night Session are the same connectivity products currently offered by the Exchange. Members wishing to participate in the Night Session must obtain separate ports because the Night Session operates in a separate system environment, as previously described in the 23-5 Approval Order. The proposal does not create new port functionality; rather, it clarifies the fees and certain waivers applicable when members use existing FIX Trading, OUCH, CORE FIX, OUCH Purge, FIX Purge, and DROP ports to connect to the Night Session environment.
The Exchange further believes the proposal is reasonable because it provides substantial fee relief to firms seeking to participate in the Night Session. The Exchange proposes to provide the first five Night Session ports of each applicable port type without charge, including FIX Trading, OUCH, CORE FIX, OUCH Purge, FIX Purge, and DROP ports.
The Exchange believes the proposed limited waiver is reasonable because, based on feedback received from customers, firms participating in the Night Session are expected to utilize between one and three ports. Accordingly, the proposed limited waiver is expected to permit most firms to participate in the Night Session without incurring port fees. The waiver is intended to encourage participation in the Night Session and facilitate member onboarding in advance of the launch of Night Session on or about December 6, 2026.
The Exchange believes the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed limited waiver will be available to all members on the same terms. Any member may obtain Night Session ports and receive the benefit of the proposed limited waiver for each applicable port type, including FIX Trading, OUCH, CORE FIX, OUCH Purge, FIX Purge, and DROP ports.
The Exchange believes that the proposed NTF limited waiver is reasonable because it encourages firms voluntarily to test connectivity to the Night Session environment prior to launch. Although NTF testing is not required for participation in the Night Session, the Exchange believes that encouraging such testing promotes operational readiness and supports an orderly launch of Night Session trading. By waiving fees associated with testing the first five Night Session ports of each applicable port type through NTF, the Exchange seeks to encourage members to validate connectivity prior to commencement of Night Session trading.
The Exchange believes the NTF limited waiver represents an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly discriminatory because the waiver will be available to all members on the same terms. Any member may utilize NTF testing and receive the benefit of the proposed waiver.
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.
In terms of inter-market competition, the proposal will not impose any burden on competition because participation in the Night Session is voluntary and market participants may choose whether to obtain Night Session connectivity. Moreover, the proposal provides certain limited fee waivers that reduce the costs associated with establishing Night Session connectivity and testing such connectivity prior to launch.
In terms of intra-market competition, the proposal will not impose any burden on competition because the proposed limited waivers will be available equally to all members. All members that choose to participate in the Night Session will be eligible to receive the first five Night Session ports of each applicable port type without charge and to test the first five Night Session ports of each applicable port type through NTF without charge. Thereafter, all members will be assessed the same fees under the Exchange's fee schedule.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 5, 2026, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As part of its suite of order types, the Exchange currently offers Users the ability to enter ISOs, which are limit orders for a National Market System stock (“NMS stock”) that meet the following requirements: (i) when routed to a trading center, the limit order is identified as an ISO; (ii) simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for the NMS stock with a price that is superior to the limit price of the limit order as identified as an ISO (and these additional routed orders also must be marked as ISOs).
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(d) to: (i) permit an Intermarket Sweep Order to be entered as a Non-Displayed Order and (ii) to establish when the System will consider the limit price of an ISO to be available for other orders to be entered or to re-price to that price level. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(4) to permit Non-Displayed Orders to re-price to more aggressive prices.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(d) to permit an ISO to be entered as a displayed order or as a Non-Displayed Order (a “Non-Displayed ISO”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(d)(2) would provide that upon receipt of an ISO during the Early Trading Session,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(d)(3) would provide that notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), the System will consider the limit price of an ISO entered during Regular Trading Hours to remain available for new orders to be entered or resting orders to re-price based on User instruction if such order remains eligible for execution during the After Hours Trading Session.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(g)(4) (“Non-Displayed Order Sliding”) to permit Users to elect multiple price sliding for Non-Displayed Orders. Currently, a Non-Displayed Order containing a price slide instruction that crosses the Protected Quotation of an away market will receive a new timestamp and will be ranked by the System at the locking price and would not be re-priced by the System unless it is again crossing a Protected Quotation of an away market.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Permitting ISOs to be submitted with a Non-Displayed instruction will provide market participants with more flexibility in accomplishing their trading strategies and will enable Users to more effectively implement their trading strategies across market centers. Other national securities exchanges currently offer this function.
For these reasons, the Commission finds the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to implement an Exchange Order Entry Protocol Migration Program. The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce the Exchange's Order Entry Protocol Migration Program (the, “Program”). As described in further detail below, the Program is intended to provide Members, subject to certain conditions, fee credits for logical ports that Members establish solely for use as a back-up connection during an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration;
Specifically, the proposed Program would provide that during an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration (“Migration”) a Member may establish a logical port to serve solely as a backup connection (“Redundant Logical Port”) during the Member's migration from a prior logical port protocol to the current logical port protocol (“New Logical Port”). The Redundant Logical Port may only be used for Exchange issues directly related to the Migration that prevent the Member from using their New Logical Port, thereby requiring the Member to instead use their Redundant Logical Port to enter orders and/or quotes into the System. A Member shall be eligible for a credit of the monthly logical port fee(s) that would otherwise be assessed for such Redundant Logical Port, provided that: (i) the Member notifies the Exchange's Trade Desk, in a manner specified by the Exchange, that the Redundant Logical Port being established is intended to serve only as a backup connection during a Migration; (ii) the Redundant Logical Port is canceled by the Member within 30 calendar days of the Member designating such logical port as a Redundant Logical Port; (iii) any orders and/or quotes entered by the Member into the Redundant Logical Port must be due to an Exchange issue directly related to the Migration; and (iv) within 30 days following such cancelation, the Member submits to the Exchange's Trade Desk a request for a credit of the fees assessed by the Exchange for the Redundant Logical Port.
Following receipt of the credit request, the Exchange will review the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage for the period during which the Redundant Logical Port was designated as such and confirm the Member's compliance with (i)-(iv), above. If the Member satisfies these requirements the Exchange will apply a credit for the fees assessed for the Redundant Logical Port to the Member's invoice for the billing cycle following the Exchange's confirmation.
The Exchange is implementing the Program to credit logical port fees back to Members where their establishment of a Redundant Logical Port was solely for the purpose of creating backup logical ports to be used in the event a Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of their own, is not available for use, thereby preventing their access to the Exchange. In this regard, by creating Redundant Logical Ports, Members can responsibly ensure that they will maintain access to the Exchange even in the event where their New Logical Ports, which were created only because of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, are not available for use because of an Exchange issue (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a credit of the applicable monthly logical port fees only where a Member establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with Migration. In this circumstance, the Member is adopting a New Logical Port not as a matter of its own business discretion, but solely because the Exchange has elected to migrate to an updated order entry protocol. The Redundant Logical Port that a Member maintains during such a transition is therefore directly attributable to an Exchange driven change and exists solely to preserve the Member's continued access to the Exchange in the event the Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of the Member, does not function as intended due to an Exchange Migration issue. By contrast, the Exchange does not believe it would be reasonable or appropriate to extend the credit to a logical port that a Member establishes in connection with a Member initiated change, because in that case the additional connection reflects the Member's own operational preferences and business decisions (
The Exchange further believes that the 30-calendar day period during which a Member may maintain a Redundant Logical Port and remain eligible for the credit is reasonable. A migration to a new order entry protocol presents operational risk for Members, and the 30-calendar day overlap period affords Members an adequate opportunity to establish, test, and gain confidence in the operation of their New Logical Port before decommissioning the logical port that supported the prior protocol. Permitting this limited period of overlap reduces the risk that a Member will prematurely cancel a functioning connection and thereby jeopardize its access to the Exchange during a critical transition. At the same time, the Exchange believes 30-calendar days is an appropriately tailored period that is long enough to allow Members to develop confidence in the New Logical Port, while ensuring that the credit remains tied to the migration and is not used to subsidize a Member's maintenance of duplicative connectivity on an indefinite basis. The Exchange also believes that measuring this period in calendar days, rather than business days, promotes clarity and ease of
The Exchange also believes the proposed Program is reasonable because it is designed to alleviate the migration related costs that Members would otherwise incur solely as a result of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration and to promote Member confidence throughout the Migration process. Absent the Program, a Member that responsibly establishes a Redundant Logical Port to preserve its access to the Exchange during a Migration would be assessed the full monthly logical port fee for a connection that, absent an Exchange Migration related issue, it would not otherwise use. By crediting such fees, the Program removes a financial disincentive to maintaining a backup connection and encourages Members to take reasonable measures to ensure continuity of access during the transition. The Exchange believes that relieving Members of these costs, which arise only because of an Exchange initiated change, supports a more orderly Migration process, reduces operational risk to Members and the market, and thereby removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes the proposed Program provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because the credit is available to all Members on the same terms and is governed by the same objective conditions set forth in (i) through (iv) above. Any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an Exchange Migration, and that satisfies those conditions, is eligible for the same credit of the monthly logical port fees that would otherwise be assessed for such Redundant Logical Port. The Exchange believes it is equitable to allocate the cost of a Redundant Logical Port from Members in this limited circumstance because the underlying connection is established only in response to an Exchange initiated change and, absent an Exchange Migration related issue, is not used by the Member to enter orders and quotes into the System.
For substantially the same reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Program applies uniformly to all similarly situated Members, as any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with an Exchange Migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the credit on the same basis, regardless of the type or size of the Member. The credit is not available on a discretionary or selective basis; rather, it is applied according to the objective, transparent criteria set forth in the proposed rule text, following the Exchange's review of the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage and confirmation of the Member's compliance with those criteria. Because the availability of the credit turns solely on the objective circumstances of an Exchange Migration and the Member's compliance with uniform conditions, the Exchange believes the proposed Program does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
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 proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the Redundant Logical Port credit is available to all Members and Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”)
Although the Program relates to logical ports established in connection with an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, it does not favor any particular type of market participant because any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an Exchange initiated migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the same credit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. The Program is limited to fees and credits for Redundant Logical Ports that Members establish solely because of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, and it does not disadvantage other exchanges. To the extent the Program makes BZX more attractive or favorable by reducing migration-related costs and supporting continuity of Member access to the Exchange, it will help to foster competition among exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to implement an Exchange Order Entry Protocol Migration Program. The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce the Exchange's Order Entry Protocol Migration Program (the, “Program”). As described in further detail below, the Program is intended to provide Members,
Specifically, the proposed Program would provide that during an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration (“Migration”) a Member may establish a logical port to serve solely as a backup connection (“Redundant Logical Port”) during the Member's migration from a prior logical port protocol to the current logical port protocol (“New Logical Port”). The Redundant Logical Port may only be used for Exchange issues directly related to the Migration that prevent the Member from using their New Logical Port, thereby requiring the Member to instead use their Redundant Logical Port to enter orders and/or quotes into the System.
Following receipt of the credit request, the Exchange will review the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage for the period during which the Redundant Logical Port was designated as such and confirm the Member's compliance with (i)-(iv), above. If the Member satisfies these requirements the Exchange will apply a credit for the fees assessed for the Redundant Logical Port to the Member's invoice for the billing cycle following the Exchange's confirmation.
The Exchange is implementing the Program to credit logical port fees back to Members where their establishment of a Redundant Logical Port was solely for the purpose of creating backup logical ports to be used in the event a Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of their own, is not available for use, thereby preventing their access to the Exchange. In this regard, by creating Redundant Logical Ports, Members can responsibly ensure that they will maintain access to the Exchange even in the event where their New Logical Ports, which were created only because of an
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a credit of the applicable monthly logical port fees only where a Member establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with Migration. In this circumstance, the Member is adopting a New Logical Port not as a matter of its own business discretion, but solely because the Exchange has elected to migrate to an updated order entry protocol. The Redundant Logical Port that a Member maintains during such a transition is therefore directly attributable to an Exchange driven change and exists solely to preserve the Member's continued access to the Exchange in the event the Member's New Logical Port, through no fault of the Member, does not function as intended due to an Exchange Migration issue. By contrast, the Exchange does not believe it would be reasonable or appropriate to extend the credit to a logical port that a Member establishes in connection with a Member initiated change, because in that case the additional connection reflects the Member's own operational preferences and business decisions (
The Exchange further believes that the 30-calendar day period during which a Member may maintain a Redundant Logical Port and remain eligible for the credit is reasonable. A migration to a new order entry protocol presents operational risk for Members, and the 30-calendar day overlap period affords Members an adequate opportunity to establish, test, and gain confidence in the operation of their New Logical Port before decommissioning the logical port that supported the prior protocol. Permitting this limited period of overlap reduces the risk that a Member will prematurely cancel a functioning connection and thereby jeopardize its access to the Exchange during a critical transition. At the same time, the Exchange believes 30-calendar days is an appropriately tailored period that is long enough to allow Members to develop confidence in the New Logical Port, while ensuring that the credit remains tied to the migration and is not used to subsidize a Member's maintenance of duplicative connectivity on an indefinite basis. The Exchange also believes that measuring this period in calendar days, rather than business days, promotes clarity and ease of administration for both Members and the Exchange as it removes the need to have to account for holidays and weekends.
The Exchange also believes the proposed Program is reasonable because it is designed to alleviate the migration related costs that Members would otherwise incur solely as a result of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration and to promote Member confidence throughout the Migration process. Absent the Program, a Member that responsibly establishes a Redundant Logical Port to preserve its access to the Exchange during a Migration would be assessed the full monthly logical port fee for a connection that, absent an Exchange Migration related issue, it would not otherwise use. By crediting such fees, the Program removes a financial disincentive to maintaining a backup connection and encourages Members to take reasonable measures to ensure continuity of access during the transition. The Exchange believes that relieving Members of these costs, which arise only because of an Exchange initiated change, supports a more orderly Migration process, reduces operational risk to Members and the market, and thereby removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes the proposed Program provides for an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because the credit is available to all Members on the same terms and is governed by the same objective conditions set forth in (i) through (iv) above. Any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an
For substantially the same reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Program applies uniformly to all similarly situated Members, as any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port in connection with an Exchange Migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the credit on the same basis, regardless of the type or size of the Member. The credit is not available on a discretionary or selective basis; rather, it is applied according to the objective, transparent criteria set forth in the proposed rule text, following the Exchange's review of the Redundant Logical Port's order and quote usage and confirmation of the Member's compliance with those criteria. Because the availability of the credit turns solely on the objective circumstances of an Exchange Migration and the Member's compliance with uniform conditions, the Exchange believes the proposed Program does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
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 proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition as the Redundant Logical Port credit is available to all Members and Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”)
Although the Program relates to logical ports established in connection with an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, it does not favor any particular type of market participant because any Member that establishes a Redundant Logical Port during an Exchange initiated migration and satisfies conditions (i) through (iv) is eligible for the same credit. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. The Program is limited to fees and credits for Redundant Logical Ports that Members establish solely because of an Exchange initiated order entry protocol migration, and it does not disadvantage other exchanges. To the extent the Program makes EDGA more attractive or favorable by reducing migration-related costs and supporting continuity of Member access to the Exchange, it will help to foster competition among exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the state of Missouri dated August 28, 2026.
Issued on August 28, 2026.
Milton Murphy, 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 of a rural area 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 21819B and for economic injury is 218200.
The state which received an SBA Administrative rural declaration is Missouri.
Notice and request for comment.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is publishing for public comment updated minimum performance standards for commercialization for firms funded through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. This commercialization benchmark establishes a minimum share of annual revenue that a Small Business Concern (SBC) must derive from sources other than SBIR or STTR program funding in order to remain eligible for a new Phase I or Direct-to-Phase II award, where that SBC has received more than 25 Phase II awards during the five most recently completed fiscal years, excluding the current fiscal year. The revised benchmark will supersede the benchmark announced at 78 FR 48537 and 78 FR 59410. This requirement is issued under the authority of Section 9 of the Small Business Act.
The standards take effect November 15, 2026, and when published on
Send all comments to Joshua Carter, Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, Small Business Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Joshua Carter, Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, (800) 827-5722,
• Fiscal Year 2027 assessment: An SBC subject to this benchmark must demonstrate a non-SBIR revenue share
• Fiscal Year 2028 assessment and each fiscal year thereafter: An SBC subject to this benchmark must demonstrate a non-SBIR revenue share of at least 50 percent during the three most recent fiscal years excluding the current fiscal year.
For example, if a company received 30 Phase II awards across Fiscal Years 2022 through 2026, it would be subject to this benchmark at the June 1, 2027, determination. If, for the three most recent fiscal years, the company reports total revenue of $4,000,000, of which $800,000 came from private commercial sales, $300,000 came from an award made under Phase III authority from a federal agency, and $100,000 came from another government contract, for a combined non-SBIR revenue of $1,200,000, the company's non-SBIR revenue would represent 30 percent of their total revenue, and thus the company would not meet the 33 percent Fiscal Year 2027 threshold and would be subject to the consequence described below. Note that the private commercial revenue and all non-SBIR government funding count toward the 30 percent figure under this benchmark's definition of non-SBIR revenue. Beginning with the Fiscal Year 2028 assessment, that same company would need to reach a 50 percent non-SBIR revenue share during the three most recent fiscal years to pass.
Section 9(qq)(4) of the Small Business Act requires that each system and minimum performance standard established under Section 9(qq)(1) or (qq)(2) be submitted to, and approved by, the SBA Administrator, who must ensure that the minimum performance standard exceeds a de minimis level. SBA is required to publish, at least 60 days before becoming effective, the system and performance standard to be used, and the approval by SBA. SBA will review all comments received in response to this notice and issue the final commercialization benchmark requirement within the timeframe noted above in the
Department of State.
Rescindment of a system of records notice.
The former Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Contact List, State-03 which is being rescinded, contained contact information from business, labor, agricultural and non-government organizations, and others working in the international economic arena as well as individuals who were interested in or requested information about economic issues. The information was used for inviting individuals to Department briefings on international economic issues, disseminating speeches and articles on economic issues by Department officials, and providing U.S. government fact sheets on major international economic issues.
The Department of State published Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, State-03 on October 26, 2001. Effective February 2025, the Department no longer maintains this system of records.
Questions can be submitted by mail, email, or by calling Timothy J. Kootz, the Senior Agency Official for Privacy on (202) 485-2051. If mail, please write to: U.S Department of State; Office of Shared Knowledge Services, A/SKS; Room 4534, 2201 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20520. If email, please address the email to the Senior Agency Official for Privacy, Timothy J. Kootz, at
Timothy J. Kootz, Senior Agency Official for Privacy; U.S. Department of State; Office of Shared Knowledge Services, A/SKS; Room 4534, 2201 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20520 or by calling (202) 485-2051.
Due to their age and short-term temporary nature, the records in “Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Contact List State-03” are presumed to have been destroyed, in accordance with the Department's records disposition schedule, since the Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy (EB/EPPD) no longer exists and thus no longer uses or maintains the system of records, and both EB/EPPD and the Department's Office of Enterprise Records Management are unable to locate or confirm whether the records were destroyed. [
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Contact List State-03.
66 FR 54320.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to abandon approximately 24.43 miles of rail line located between milepost CT 80.57 ± and approximately milepost CT 105.0 ± in Scioto County, Ohio (the Line). The Line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 45662, 45652, 45663, 45660, 45671, and 45657.
NSR has certified that: (1) no local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received,
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. AB 290 (Sub No. 422X), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on NSR's representative, William A. Mullins, Mullins Law Group PLLC, 2001 L St. NW, Suite 720 Washington, DC 20036.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
NSR has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the potential effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) by September 4, 2026. The Draft EA will be available to interested persons on the Board's website, by writing to OEA, or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0294. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245. Comments on environmental or historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the Draft EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/railbanking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), NSR shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by NSR's filing of a notice of consummation by September 2, 2027, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Anika S. Cooper, Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice.
Effective July 1, 2026, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) implemented certain changes to statistical reporting categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). As a result of these changes, USTR is making conforming amendments to four product exclusions associated with the Section 301 investigation of China Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.
The conforming amendments announced in the Annex to this notice are effective as of July 1, 2026. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will issue instructions on entry guidance and implementation.
For general questions about this notice, contact Senior Associate General Counsel Philip Butler or Assistant General Counsel Rachel Hasandras at (202) 395-5725. For specific questions on customs classification or implementation of the product exclusions identified in the Annex to this notice, contact
Effective July 1, 2026, the USITC implemented certain changes to ten-digit statistical reporting categories of the HTSUS in accordance with its responsibility under section 484(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1484(f). Four of the product exclusions associated with the Section 301 investigation of China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, as set out in the Annexes at 89 FR 46948 (May 30, 2024), 90 FR 23987 (June 5, 2025), 90 FR 42500 (September 2, 2025), and 90 FR 55232 (December 1, 2025), are affected by the amended statistical reporting categories.
To maintain the pre-existing product coverage of the China 301 actions, four conforming amendments to the corresponding note provision in the HTSUS are required. In particular, the Annex to this notice makes conforming amendments to U.S. notes 20(vvv)(i)(4), 20(vvv)(i)(5), 20(vvv)(i)(6), and 20(vvv)(iv)(4) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, as set out in the Annexes at 89 FR 46948, 90 FR 23987, 90 FR 42500, and 90 FR 55232.
1. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from the warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on July 1, 2026, note 20(vvv)(i)(4) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is modified by inserting “through June 30, 2026; described
2. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from the warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on July 1, 2026, note 20(vvv)(i)(5) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by inserting “through June 30, 2026; described in statistical reporting numbers 8413.91.9039, 8413.91.9046, 8413.91.9059 or 8413.91.9099 effective July 1, 2026” after “January 1, 2020.”
3. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from the warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on July 1, 2026, note 20(vvv)(i)(6) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by inserting “through June 30, 2026; described in statistical reporting numbers 8413.91.9039, 8413.91.9046, 8413.91.9059 or 8413.91.9099 effective July 1, 2026” after “January 1, 2020.”
4. Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from the warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on July 1, 2026, note 20(vvv)(iv)(4) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified by inserting “prior to July 1, 2026; described in statistical reporting numbers 3926.90.9915 or 3926.90.9920 effective July 1, 2026” after “3926.90.9910”.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of Actions by FHWA.
This notice announces action taken by FHWA that are final. The actions relate to the proposed Cape Cod Bridges Project which includes replacement of the Sagamore Bridge carrying U.S. Route 6 and replacement of the Bourne Bridge carrying State Route 28 as it travels across the Cape Cod Canal and their respective approaches in the town of Bourne in Barnstable County Massachusetts. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FHWA: Joi B. Singh, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, MA Division, 220 Binney Street, 9th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142; Telephone (617) 494-3657;
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency action subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Program needs include addressing the deteriorating structural condition and escalating maintenance demands of the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges; addressing the substandard design elements of the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges, the immediate mainline approaches, and their adjacent interchanges and intersections; improving vehicular operations; and improving accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The actions by FHWA, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Project, signed June 26, 2026, and in other documents in the project records. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA administrative record files are available by contacting FHWA or MassDOT at the addresses provided above. The FEIS and ROD can also be viewed and downloaded from the Program website at:
This notice applies to FHWA agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. The analysis pertaining to any applicable Executive Order considered during the environmental review process to the extent such analysis may be challenged in court. Such Executive Orders include, E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management; E.O.11990,
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 November 2, 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
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, 202-317-6009.
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess its 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 be 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.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall, in coordination with the Board on Geographic Names and consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of the Interior.