Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Disability Employment Policy Office
Employment and Training Administration
Veterans Employment and Training Service
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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 Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was published in the
This correction is effective September 24, 2026. The effective date of AD 2026-17-03 remains September 24, 2026.
Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7655; email:
AD 2026-17-03, Amendment 39-23446 (91 FR 53713, August 20, 2026) (AD 2026-17-03), requires replacement of affected 3rd stage High Pressure Compressor (HPC) rotor blades with parts eligible for installation for certain IAE AG Model V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 engines.
As published, paragraph (g) of AD 2026-17-03 contains a typographical error. The word “blade” was inadvertently omitted from the final regulatory text. Paragraph (g) of AD 2026-17-03 should read, “. . . where the 3rd stage HPC rotor blade is exposed . . .,” which is consistent with the intent of the proposed AD (90 FR 51600, November 18, 2025).
This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the entire rule in the
The effective date of this AD remains September 24, 2026.
Since this action only corrects the typographical error, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public procedures are unnecessary.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 24, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to International Aero Engines AG (IAE AG) Model V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, V2531-E5, and V2533-A5 engines with a 3rd stage high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor blade having part number (P/N) 6A8353 or P/N 6A8688 installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of failed 3rd stage HPC rotor blades that resulted in engine fires, unplanned engine removals, aborted takeoffs, and in-flight shutdowns (IFSD). The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 3rd stage HPC rotor blades. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in engine fire, reduced control of the airplane, and engine IFSD.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD where the 3rd stage HPC rotor blade is exposed, replace the full set of 3rd stage HPC rotor blades with parts eligible for installation.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is:
(i) A 3rd stage HPC rotor blade having P/N 6C8368, 6C8403, or later approved P/N; or
(ii) A 3rd stage HPC rotor blade modified to P/N 6A8353-001 or P/N 6A8688-001.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a “3rd stage HPC rotor blade exposure” is when any 3rd stage HPC rotor blade is removed from the HPC stage 3 to 8 drum.
(3) For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7655; email:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace at Clovis, NM, and establishes Class E airspace at Clovis, NM, and Portales, NM. This action is the result of a biennial airspace review conducted for Cannon AFB (Air Force Base), Clovis, NM, and airspace reviews conducted at Clovis Regional Airport, Clovis, NM, and Portales Municipal Airport, Portales, NM, due to updated instrument procedures. The name and geographic coordinates for the Cannon TACAN are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action brings the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and supports instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 24, 2026. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the 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. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class D and Class E airspace and establishes Class E airspace at the affected airport to support IFR operations.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2026-3238 in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Clovis, NM, and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface at Clovis, NM, and Portales, NM, due to a biennial airspace review and airspace reviews conducted due to updated instrument procedures.
For the Cannon AFB, Clovis, NM, Class D airspace, this action: (1) decreases the radius from 6 miles to 5.4 miles; (2) adds an extension within 1 mile each side of the 039° bearing from the Cannon TACAN extending from the 5.4-mile radius to 5.9 miles northeast of the airport; and (3) updates the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”
For the Cannon AFB Class E surface area, this action: (1) decreases the radius from 6 miles to 5.4 miles; (2) adds an extension within 1 mile each side of the 039° bearing from the Cannon TACAN extending from the 5.4-mile radius to 5.9 miles northeast of the airport; (3) removes the Cannon ILS Localizer from the airspace legal description as it is not required; (4) updates the geographic coordinates and the name of the Cannon TACAN, previously Cannon TACAN0,
For the Cannon AFB Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface, this action: (1) decreases the radius from 20 miles to 7.9 miles; (2) removes the Portales Municipal Airport and associated airspace from the airspace legal description as separate airspace is being established to comply with FAA Order JO 7400.2R, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; (3) removes the Texico VORTAC and associated extension as they are no longer required; and (4) removes the city associated with Cannon AFB from the airspace legal description header to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Clovis Regional Airport, Clovis, NM.
And this action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft. above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Portales Municipal Airport, Portales, NM.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 6,800 feet MSL within a 5.4-mile radius Cannon AFB; and within 1 mile each side of the 039° bearing from the Cannon TACAN extending from the 5.4-mile radius of Cannon AFB to 5.9 miles northeast of Cannon AFB. The Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by the Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.4-mile radius Cannon AFB; and within 1 mile each side of the 039° bearing from the Cannon TACAN extending from the 5.4-mile radius of Cannon AFB to 5.9 miles northeast of Cannon AFB. The Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by the Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.9-mile radius of Cannon AFB.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Clovis Regional Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Portales Municipal Airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody test system for inflammatory bowel disease into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on September 29, 2023.
Simona Puiu, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3564, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4940,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody test system for inflammatory bowel disease into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On December 8, 2021, FDA received ProciseDx, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the Procise IFX device. On April 4, 2022, FDA received ProciseDx, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the Procise ADL device. FDA reviewed both requests in order to classify the devices under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the requests, we determined that the devices can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices.
Therefore, on September 29, 2023, FDA issued orders to the requester classifying both devices into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the devices by adding 21 CFR 862.3115.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody test systems for inflammatory bowel disease. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Design verification and validation must include the following:
(i) Detailed documentation of studies that demonstrate the analytical performance of the device for its intended use, including for each analyte and device output. These studies must demonstrate analytical performance for each monoclonal antibody analyte and device output that is adequate to support all intended clinical uses, including all of its indications for use, and testing environments. These studies must include precision, reproducibility, linearity, accuracy, high dose hook effect, sample stability, detection limits (including limit of blank, limit of detection, and limit of quantification) and analytical specificity studies, or alternative approaches determined to be appropriate by FDA.
(ii) Detailed documentation of data that is adequate to support the accuracy of the device and/or device performance for all intended clinical uses, including all of its indications for use, as determined to be appropriate by FDA.
(iii) Detailed documentation demonstrating traceability of the device to an internationally recognized reference material, as determined to be appropriate by FDA.
(2) The labeling required under § 809.10(b) of this chapter must include limiting statements including the following:
(i) The device should not be used for conditions other than Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.
(ii) The test result is intended as an aid in the management of the patient, and not to be used to replace clinical judgment.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the mechanical deviation device for esophageal protection during cardiac
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on September 6, 2023.
Aneesh Deoras, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4363,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the mechanical deviation device for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On January 24, 2023, FDA received S4 Medical Corp.'s request for De Novo classification of the esolution Esophageal Retractor. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on September 6, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.5710.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order. FDA supports the principles of the “3Rs,” to replace, reduce, and/or refine animal use in testing when feasible. We encourage sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider whether such an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal test method.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for mechanical deviation devices for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Evaluation of reduction of the incidence of esophageal injury during cardiac ablation procedures; and
(ii) Evaluation of any esophageal or oral injury from use of the device.
(2) Animal performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under the anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Evaluation of the device's capability to adequately deviate the esophagus, including its trailing edge, away from the source of ablation energy; and
(ii) Evaluation of any esophageal injury from use of the device.
(3) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Mechanical integrity testing using clinically relevant forces; and
(ii) Compatibility testing with accessory devices.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of any device components intended to be provided sterile.
(5) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(6) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating package integrity and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(7) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A summary of clinical performance testing with the device; and
(ii) A shelf life.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the extravascular support for an arteriovenous fistula for vascular access into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the extravascular support for an arteriovenous fistula for vascular access. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on September 26, 2023.
Nicole Schiavone, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2570, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4053,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the extravascular support for an arteriovenous fistula for vascular access into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On April 29, 2022, FDA received Laminate Medical Technologies Ltd.'s request for De Novo classification of the VasQ device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on September 26, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.4600.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order. FDA supports the principles of the “3Rs,” to replace, reduce, and/or refine animal use in testing when feasible. We encourage sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider whether such an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal test method.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for extravascular supports for an arteriovenous fistula for vascular access. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must evaluate:
(i) The ability to safely implant the device;
(ii) The ability of the arteriovenous fistula supported by the device to attain a blood flow rate and diameter suitable for hemodialysis;
(iii) The ability of the fistula to be used for vascular access;
(iv) The primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency of the fistula;
(v) The rates and types of device integrity events and any associated clinical sequelae;
(vi) The rates and types of all adverse events; and
(vii) The rates and outcomes of reinterventions.
(2) If FDA determines that premarket clinical information is insufficient to evaluate long-term safety and effectiveness of the product, postmarket data must be collected through an adequately designed and powered postmarket study to assess the following:
(i) The functionality and patency of the fistula through a clinically meaningful timeframe;
(ii) The rates and types of access-related, reintervention-related, and cannulation-related adverse events; and
(iii) The reasons for, rates, types, and outcomes of reinterventions.
(3) Animal performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be assessed:
(i) Implantation of the device;
(ii) Patency of the fistula; and
(iii) Gross pathology and histopathology assessing vascular injury and downstream embolization.
(4) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Resistance to kinking;
(ii) Resistance to crush and local compression;
(iii) Tensile strength of joints and components;
(iv) Device integrity;
(v) Corrosion resistance; and
(vi) Characterization and verification of all dimensions.
(5) Non-clinical testing must evaluate the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance (MR) environment.
(6) All patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(7) Performance data must demonstrate sterility of the device components intended to be provided sterile.
(8) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(9) Labeling for the device must include:
(i) Specific instructions regarding device size selection and device placement;
(ii) Expertise needed for safe use of the device;
(iii) A detailed summary of the clinical testing conducted and the patient population studied, including information on effectiveness and device- and procedure-related complications;
(iv) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters;
(v) A shelf life and storage conditions; and
(vi) MR information.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the temperature regulation device for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the temperature regulation device for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on September 13, 2023.
David Hazlewood, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2227, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-3641,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the temperature regulation device for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On March 30, 2023, FDA received Advanced Cooling Therapy, Inc. (d/b/a Attune Medical)'s request for De Novo classification of the ensoETM device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on September 13, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 870.5720.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order. FDA supports the principles of the “3Rs,” to replace, reduce, and/or refine animal use in testing when feasible. We encourage sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider whether such an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal test method.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for temperature regulation devices for esophageal protection during cardiac ablation procedures. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 870 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Evaluation of reduction of the incidence of esophageal injury during cardiac ablation procedures;
(ii) Evaluation of any effects on the ablation procedure resulting in patient injury, improper catheter performance, or interruption of procedure; and
(iii) Evaluation of any esophageal or oral injury from use of the device.
(2) Animal performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under the anticipated conditions of use, including evaluation of any esophageal injury from use of the device.
(3) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and include the following:
(i) Mechanical integrity testing using clinically relevant forces;
(ii) Testing to determine temperature change rate(s); and
(iii) Compatibility testing with accessory devices.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of any device components intended to be provided sterile.
(5) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(6) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating package integrity and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(7) Labeling must include the following:
(8) A summary of clinical performance testing with the device; and
(9) A shelf life.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the cooperative powered surgical assist device for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the cooperative powered surgical assist device for ENT surgery. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on July 19, 2023.
Vasant Dasika, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1206, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5365,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the cooperative powered surgical assist device for ENT surgery into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On July 22, 2022, FDA received Galen Robotics' request for De Novo classification of the Galen ES Robotic Surgical Assistant Platform. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on July 19, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 874.4460.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 874 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Simulated-use testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use to successfully assist in the indicated surgery, including:
(i) Testing in a simulated hospital environment with an anatomically relevant model;
(ii) Compatibility testing of all indicated instruments;
(iii) Human factors/usability evaluation; and
(iv) Validation of device use by surgeons, including:
(A) The user interface and controller(s);
(B) Compatibility with the ranges of surgeon-applied forces, torques, speeds, and motion; and
(C) Time required for emergency removal of the device and associated instruments in the event of power loss or device failure.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate hardware and system verification, including verification of critical parameters (including minimum and maximum forces, torques, speeds, and range of motion).
(3) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed for any software components of the device.
(4) Performance testing must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety, and thermal safety of the device.
(5) All parts or components of the device that enter the sterile field must be demonstrated to be sterile.
(6) Performance testing must support the shelf life of device components provided sterile by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
(7) All patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(8) Labeling must include:
(i) Identification of compatible instruments;
(ii) A statement about any training needed prior to use of the device;
(iii) A summary of all relevant performance testing, including simulated-use testing; and
(iv) Reprocessing instructions for reusable device components.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the implanted tibial electrical urinary continence device into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the implanted tibial electrical urinary continence device. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on August 16, 2023.
Sharon Andrews, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6529,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the implanted tibial electrical urinary continence device into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On October 5, 2022, FDA received BlueWind Medical Ltd.'s request for De Novo classification of the Revi System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 16, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 876.5305.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
At the time of classification, implanted tibial electrical urinary continence devices are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for implanted tibial electrical urinary continence devices. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following testing must be conducted:
(i) Electrical performance testing of the device must be conducted to validate the specified electrical output and duration of stimulation of the device; and
(ii) Testing must verify the implant can withstand clinically relevant forces during and after implantation.
(2) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(3) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the patient-contacting components of the device.
(4) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility of patient-contacting components, package integrity, and device functionality over the identified shelf life.
(5) Performance testing must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety, thermal safety, and wireless performance of the device.
(6) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(7) Performance testing must evaluate the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance environment.
(8) Labeling for the device must include:
(i) A contraindication against use during pregnancy;
(ii) A contraindication against using the device in men who have Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) or other lower urinary tract obstructions;
(iii) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters and the typical course of treatment;
(iv) Device- and procedure-related adverse events pertinent to use of the device; and
(v) A shelf life for any sterile components.
(9) Patient labeling must include:
(i) Post-operative care instructions to avoid infection and inflammation of the surgical site;
(ii) Instructions to avoid overstimulation related nerve and tissue damage;
(iii) Instructions to avoid mechanical injuries to nerve and tissue caused by the implanted component;
(iv) Instructions for reprocessing/cleaning of any reusable components;
(v) Clinical performance reported by relevant subgroups;
(vi) The risks and benefits associated with use of the device;
(vii) Information on the typical course of treatment;
(viii) Instructions to avoid pain and discomfort; and
(ix) Instructions to avoid interference with other medical devices.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the whole room microbial reduction device into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the whole room microbial reduction device. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on September 1, 2023.
Christopher Dugard, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-6031,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the whole room microbial reduction device into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On February 1, 2023, FDA received Xenex Disinfection Services, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the LightStrike+ device. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable
Therefore, on September 1, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 880.6510.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for whole room microbial reduction devices. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 880 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Performance testing must demonstrate microbial log reduction of the demonstrated most resistant microorganism on medical device surfaces commensurate with the intended level of microbial reduction;
(ii) Simulated use testing must evaluate device performance under simulated worst-case use conditions
(iii) In-use testing must evaluate device performance under real-world use conditions;
(iv) Performance testing must demonstrate the photobiological safety of any lamps or lamp systems;
(v) Performance testing must evaluate safety features intended to prevent exposure and ensure that device operation can only occur in an unoccupied environment; and
(vi) Performance testing must characterize the long-term material compatibility of the microbiocidal agent on clinically relevant surfaces and/or devices.
(2) Biocompatibility testing must demonstrate safe residual levels of chemicals on medical devices surfaces and/or gaseous byproducts in air.
(3) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed for any software components.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety of the device.
(5) Labeling must include:
(i) Warnings and instructions to ensure the device is operated in an unoccupied environment;
(ii) Setup and positioning instructions; and
(iii) Information regarding material compatibility.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the vaginal hydrogel packing system into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for classification of the vaginal hydrogel packing system. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective September 10, 2026. The classification was applicable on August 22, 2023.
Justina Tam, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3661, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4974,
Upon request, FDA (the Agency or we) has classified the vaginal hydrogel packing system into class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified into, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (see also part 860, subpart D (21 CFR part 860, subpart D)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo classification process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification (510(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On August 26, 2022, FDA received BrachyFoam, Inc. (d/b/a Advaray)'s request for De Novo classification of the BrachyGel Vaginal Hydrogel Packing
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 22, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 892.5735.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this final order.
Under the FD&C Act, submission of a premarket notification under section 510(k) is required to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of class II devices unless FDA determines that the device type should be exempt under section 510(m) of the FD&C Act. At this time FDA has not made this determination for vaginal hydrogel packing systems. This device is therefore subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 regarding quality management system regulation have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 892 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance data must demonstrate the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use and evaluate the following:
(i) Radiation dose to adjacent organs at risk;
(ii) Device stability;
(iii) Ability to deploy, expand, and remove the device; and
(iv) Patient comfort.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must include:
(i) Testing to evaluate the effect of therapeutic radiation levels on device integrity;
(ii) Bioburden testing to demonstrate the device does not pose an infection risk, if the device is not provided sterile; and
(iii) Structural integrity testing of the container, including tensile strength, container leakage, and burst strength.
(3) Performance testing must demonstrate space creation and maintenance for the duration of a radiation treatment fraction.
(4) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(5) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of patient-contacting components of the device that are provided sterile.
(6) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating package integrity and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
(7) Labeling must include:
(i) Warnings that:
(A) A three-dimensional imaging method is needed to ensure the device is placed correctly; and
(B) Failure to perform the standard imaging position verification protocol may cause the device to not perform as intended.
(ii) Instructions on how to proceed if the device fails to perform as intended;
(iii) A summary of clinical data relevant to the device, including device-related complications; and
(iv) An expiration date or shelf life.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule; stay of effectiveness.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is indefinitely suspending three general licenses and one licensing policy issued pursuant to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations to align with changes in the foreign policy of the United States towards Iran.
Effective September 8, 2026, 31 CFR 560.522, 560.528, and 560.529 are stayed indefinitely.
As of September 8, 2026, the effectiveness of Iran General License J-1, which is available on OFAC's website (
OFAC: Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, 202-622-4855; or
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On October 22, 2012, OFAC issued a final rule that amended the former Iranian Transactions Regulations, 31 CFR part 560 (ITR), and reissued them in their entirety as the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR or “the Regulations”) (77 FR 64664, October 22, 2012). Since then, OFAC has amended the Regulations on several occasions.
On December 15, 2016, OFAC published on its website General License J-1, which was issued pursuant to the Regulations. This general license is available on OFAC's website (
In response to Iran's continued disruptions to global energy markets, attacks on partners and allies in the Middle East, reconstitution of its conventional and nuclear weapons programs, efforts to monetize the Strait of Hormuz, and continued support to terrorist proxies, OFAC is indefinitely suspending the general licenses and licensing policy contained at 31 CFR 560.522, 560.528, and 560.529. These general licenses and licensing policy authorize, respectively, certain payments for overflights of Iranian airspace; the issuance of specific licenses for certain transactions related to aircraft safety; and bunkering and emergency repairs. As a result of this suspension, any such transactions are no longer authorized by OFAC as of September 8, 2026.
In addition, OFAC is suspending indefinitely Iran General License J-1, published on OFAC's website on December 15, 2016. Iran General License J-1 authorizes the reexportation of certain civil aircraft to Iran on temporary sojourn, as well as related transactions. As a result of this suspension, any such transactions are no longer authorized by OFAC as of September 8, 2026.
Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of E.O. 14192 of January 31, 2025, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) and E.O. 14219 of February 19, 2025, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative” (90 FR 10583, February 25, 2025), are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
Section 5 of E.O. 14294 of May 9, 2025, “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” (90 FR 20367, May 14, 2025), directs that all future notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) and final rules published in the
E.O. 14294 further directs that the regulatory text of all NPRMs and final rules with criminal consequences
Willful violations of the regulations set forth in this final rule may be subject to criminal penalties pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1705 and regulations promulgated thereunder. The statutory authority for criminal liability requires a mens rea of willfulness as an element pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1705(c). In drafting this statement, OFAC has consulted with the Department of Justice.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because this rule does not impose information collection requirements that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Credit, Foreign trade, Iran, Sanctions, Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC amends 31 CFR part 560 as follows:
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9, 7201-7211, 8501-8551, 8701-8795; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); E.O. 12613, 52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217; E.O. 13599, 77 FR 6659, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 215; E.O. 13846, 83 FR 38939, 3 CFR, 2018 Comp., p. 854.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego TriRock Triathlon special local regulation on the waters of San Diego Bay, California on September 12, 2026. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item No. 8, will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. on September 12, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Skye Eastman, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item No. 8, for the San Diego TriRock Triathlon race regulated area daily from 6:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. on September 12, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. The Southern California Annual Marine Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, § 100.1101, Table 1 to § 100.1101, Item No. 8, specifies the location of the regulated area for the San Diego TriRock Triathlon which encompasses the waters of San Diego Bay to include Spanish Landing. Under the provisions of § 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Safety Marine Information Broadcast or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Ocean City Airshow on September 20, 2026, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG East District identifies the regulated area for this event in Ocean City, NJ. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the special local regulations listed in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of § 100.501 for the Ocean City Airshow from 11:30 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. on September 20, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dominick J. Dobridge, Waterways Management
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 33 CFR 100.501, for the regulated area of the Ocean City Airshow from 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on September 20, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the USCG East District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the “Ocean City Airshow” which encompasses portions of the Atlantic Ocean off Ocean City, NJ. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.501(d)(2), a vessel operator may request permission to enter and transit through a regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM or official patrol vessel on VHF-FM channel 16. When authorized to transit through the regulated area, the vessel must proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the event area.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules to eliminate the requirement that Text Telephone (TTY)-based Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) be capable of communicating in the American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format. By removing this outdated regulatory mandate, the Commission relieves TRS providers of the obligation to maintain costly and obsolete ASCII-compatible hardware and software systems. Eliminating this requirement will reduce inefficiencies, preserve the integrity of the TRS Fund, and allow providers to redirect resources toward modern relay technologies, all without adversely impacting functional equivalence for consumers who rely on TTY-based TRS.
Effective October 13, 2026.
Joshua Mendelsohn, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 559-7304 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities and Delete, Delete, Delete, Report and Order (
1. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), codified at section 225 of the Communications Act, requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is available “to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner” to enable people with hearing or speech disabilities to communicate in a manner that is functionally equivalent to voice communication service. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3), (b)(1). In accordance with this directive, the Commission has adopted mandatory minimum standards for TRS.
2. At that time, TTYs generally used the Baudot coding format, but the ASCII format was widely used to transmit data between personal computers over the telephone network. The Commission, believing that ASCII was “a superior technology” that would eventually supplant Baudot as the preferred format, required that TRS be able to transmit in both ASCII and Baudot at any speed generally in use. Over the last three decades, technological advancements have revolutionized the TRS landscape, and introduced forms of non-TTY-based TRS that do not rely on the ASCII and Baudot formats to transmit information.
3. Baudot remains the predominant TTY-based TRS format, currently accounting for almost all TTY-based TRS communications. Recognizing the obsolescence of the ASCII format, T-Mobile Accessibility (T-Mobile) filed a Petition for Rulemaking in August 2022, requesting the Commission to amend § 64.604(b)(1) of its rules, to eliminate the ASCII requirement. T-Mobile noted that ASCII-based TTY calls represent a tiny fraction of its overall TRS call minutes, and that complying with the requirement forces providers to incur unnecessary hardware costs and hinders network upgrades. Following a June 2023 request from T-Mobile for a temporary waiver of the rule, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) granted a conditional two-year waiver of the ASCII requirement to T-Mobile and Hamilton on November 22, 2024. On June 27, 2025, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
4. The Commission adopts its proposal to delete the requirement in § 64.604(b)(1) of its rules, 47 CFR 64.604(b)(1), that TTY-based TRS support the ASCII format. The Commission also finds good cause to eliminate the definition of ASCII from the Commission's TRS rules. The record confirms that ASCII usage for TTY-based TRS is exceedingly small and continues to shrink. Data provided in the NPRM indicated that in a three-month period in 2022, total ASCII usage of TTY-based TRS did not exceed 87 minutes, representing approximately 0.01 percent of total TTY-based TRS minutes. Following waiver of the ASCII requirement in November 2024, one TTY-based TRS provider reports that it has not had a single request to have ASCII made available and the Commission has not received any inquiries or complaints from consumers
5. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that there is no prospect of a resurgence in ASCII usage. Stakeholders, including the Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program Association and the National Association of State Relay Administrators, point out that ASCII equipment is no longer commercially available, functional units are increasingly difficult to locate, and the format is incompatible with modern telephone networks. Because of these realities, the record reflects unanimous support for the rule's elimination from both providers and consumer advocacy groups that acknowledge the technology is obsolete.
6.
7.
8. The record demonstrates that the number of consumers impacted by this change is effectively zero. To the extent any legacy users remain, the record shows that the transition process will be seamless and straightforward. Switching from ASCII to Baudot does not require the purchase of new equipment; a TTY user will only need to change a setting on the user's existing TTY device, because most TTYs automatically default to Baudot unless specifically configured to ASCII-only. Providers have affirmed their readiness to assist any affected users to ensure a seamless migration to Baudot or other modern platforms. Because users can transition simply by adjusting their device settings, and providers will offer technical support, the Commission finds that mandating providers to supply new Baudot devices at their own expense is unnecessary.
9. The Commission concludes that eliminating the ASCII requirement is a targeted, common-sense reform that modernizes TRS regulations. The substantial benefits of reduced network complexity, hardware cost savings, and the ability to invest in modern technologies unequivocally outweigh the minimal costs of transitioning remaining ASCII users.
10.
11. The definition of ASCII was only relevant to two provisions of this subpart F in Part 64 of the Commission rules. First, § 64.607(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, concerned the availability of text telephones using ASCII, which the Commission eliminated by Direct Final Rule. Second, in this item, the Commission deletes the only other reference to ASCII. The Commission therefore finds good cause to conclude that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and would not serve any useful purpose because the term ASCII no longer needs to be defined in this portion of the rules and its deletion is inconsequential.
12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in its
13. In the
14. In addition to the near-obsolescence of the ASCII format, the Commission takes these steps because TTY users also have access to Baudot format, which is more commonly used. At present, there are only two providers of TTY-based telecommunications relay service, and usage of ASCII-format TTY totaled less than 100 minutes during three months in 2022, with less than 10 users placing calls in any month. Based on these reports, it appears that total ASCII usage of TTY-based TRS was limited to approximately 0.01% of total TTY-based TRS minutes for that period, while Baudot format TTY would account for the remaining TTY-based TRS minutes. Furthermore, retaining the requirement to support ASCII-format TTY-based TRS limits the ability of TTY-based TRS providers to upgrade and improve their networks for delivery of enhanced services. Eliminating the ASCII-support requirement will ultimately benefit both TTY-based TRS users and providers by facilitating network upgrades by providers while TTY-based TRS users can continue communicating with Baudot-format TTY or other forms of text-based TRS.
15. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.
16. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
17. The rules adopted in the
18. The changes made in the
19. The amendment to the Commission's rules governing TRS is designed to facilitate upgrades to providers' networks by eliminating the requirement to support rarely-used ASCII format. This amendment would only affect two TTY-based relay service providers and a handful of ASCII-format TTY users, who account for a very small number of TTY-based TRS call minutes. The Commission considered requiring TRS providers to incur the costs of making Baudot-format TTY devices available given the small number of ASCII-format TTY users. However, the record demonstrated that switching from ASCII to Baudot only requires changing a device setting. By removing this ASCII mandate, TTY-based TRS providers are relieved of the financial and operational costs required to support obsolete technology, thereby facilitating network upgrades without countervailing transition costs.
20. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 225, that the
21. The
22. The Office of the Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management,
23. The Commission's Office of the Secretary,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
(b)
In proposed rule document 2026-17324 published on pages 54817-54839 in the issue of Tuesday, August 25, 2026, make the following correction:
On pages 54834 and 54835, Table 13 should read as follows.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a quality escape affecting certain tailcone assemblies. This proposed AD would require replacing any tailcone assembly that has exceeded a certain life limit. Also, this proposed AD would require inspecting the tailcone assembly for gaps, and repetitively inspecting the tailcone assembly for loose, damaged, or missing fasteners. Depending on the results of these inspections, this proposed AD would require conducting further inspections and corrective actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by October 26, 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; phone: (888) 663-3639; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Zakaria Abdi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4141; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Zakaria Abdi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62, dated November 28, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters. The MCAI states that the manufacturer identified a quality escape affecting tailcone assemblies having part number (P/N) SLS-030-600-XYZ and with certain serial numbers as identified in the service material. The MCAI further states that gaps were found between the frames and skin of the tailcone assembly, and elongated holes have been observed in multiple joints of the tailboom. The MCAI also states that these discrepancies may lead to the initiation of a crack in a non-inspectable area of the tailboom skin, which can propagate circumferentially and remain undetected until it reaches a critical length. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a tailboom skin fracture, separation of the tailboom from the fuselage, and loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62, which specifies procedures for replacing a tailcone assembly before exceeding the airworthiness life limit. Transport Canada also specifies procedures for inspecting the tailcone assembly for gaps and if there are gaps greater than 0.003 inch (0.076 mm), inspecting the tailboom skin. Depending on those inspection results, Transport Canada specifies procedures to contact Bell for corrective actions. Additionally, Transport Canada specifies procedures to repetitively inspect the tailcone assembly for loose, damaged, or missing fasteners, and, depending on the results of the inspection, contacting Bell for corrective actions.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of these differences.
The MCAI requires contacting Bell product support engineering for applicable repair instructions, whereas this proposed AD would require repairing using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; Transport Canada; or Bell Textron Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA).
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 190 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements or repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need replacements or repairs.
The FAA has no way to determine the cost estimate of repairing any damage using a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; Transport Canada; or Bell Textron Canada Limited's Transport Canada DOA.
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 26, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505 helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62, dated November 28, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5302, Rotorcraft tailboom.
This AD was prompted by the identification of a manufacturing quality escape affecting certain tailcone assemblies. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and correct crack initiation in the tailboom skin. The unsafe condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a tailboom skin fracture, separation of the tailboom from the fuselage, and loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 requires compliance in terms of hours air time, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 specifies to contact Bell Product Support Engineering (PSE) for repair or disposition, this AD requires corrective action in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bell Textron Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(4) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 specifies “check”, this AD requires replacing that text with “inspect”.
(5) Where the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 specifies damage, for the purposes of this AD, damage can be indicated by, but not limited to, excessive wear marks, or yielding to the fastener head.
Although the material referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62 specifies submitting certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that action.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Zakaria Abdi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, NY 11590; phone: (316) 946-4141; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-62, dated November 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, Canada; phone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bell Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters with FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SR02684LA installed. This proposed AD was prompted by an event where a Bell Model 206L helicopter with FAA STC SR02684LA installed experienced moderate to severe vertical vibration, which resulted in damage to the tail boom of the helicopter. This proposed AD would require revising the Limitations section of the existing rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for the helicopter to include a never-exceed-speed (V
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 26, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. material identified in this proposed AD, contact Van Horn Aviation, LLC, 1510 West Drake Drive, Tempe, AZ 85283; phone: (480) 483-4202; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
James Guo, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5357; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to James Guo, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA received a report of an event involving a Model 206L helicopter with Van Horn Aviation main rotor blades, part number 20633000-101. These blades were approved for installation through FAA STC SR02684LA.
During this event, the helicopter experienced an unexpected moderate-to-severe vertical vibration during flight. Due to the unexpected vibration, the pilot initially lowered the collective to begin a descent. Subsequently, when the pilot raised the collective and initiated a left turn, the vibration diminished. The pilot was able to complete a landing without further incident; however, post-flight inspection revealed that the helicopter had sustained tail boom damage. Due to this event, the manufacturer issued material that includes accomplishing existing maintenance actions that may help reduce the likelihood of this unsafe condition. The root cause for the vibration is still being investigated. Due to risk analysis based on historical events and ongoing investigation, the FAA has determined that this proposed interim AD is necessary to mitigate risk. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural damage to the aircraft and loss of control of the helicopter.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement, Document No. 206L-MR-FMS-101, Revision 0, dated March 25, 2026 (VHA RFMS). This material specifies procedures to accomplish in the event of an unexpected moderate-to-severe vibration during flight. 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
This proposed AD would require revising the existing RFM for the helicopter to include revising the Limitations section to include a text stating a V
The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing RFM for the helicopter and must enter compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves revising the RFM, which could be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
Where the material in Section 1, “Limitations,” of the VHA RFMS specifies “No Limitations,” this proposed AD would require revising the RFM to also include a V
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If further action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 200 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of
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 26, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters, certificated in any category, with FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SR02684LA installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6210, Main Rotor Blades.
This AD was prompted by an event where an affected helicopter with FAA STC SR02684LA installed experienced moderate to severe vertical vibration which resulted in damage to the tail boom of the helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent excessive vibration which may result in structural failure. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural damage to the aircraft and loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD revise the existing rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for the helicopter by accomplishing the following:
(i) Insert the Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement, Document No. 206L-MR-FMS-101, Revision 0, dated March 25, 2026.
(ii) In the Limitations section of the RFM, insert the following text with pen and ink: “V
(2) The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual for the helicopter as required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) and must enter compliance with this requirement into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, provided the flight is restricted to a speed of no greater than 85 KIAS while the Gross Weight is less than 3400 lbs.
(1) The Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the West Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact James Guo, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: (562) 627-5357; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement, Document No. 206L-MR-FMS-101, Revision 0, dated March 25, 2026.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. material identified in this AD contact Van Horn Aviation, LLC, 1510 West Drake Drive, Tempe, AZ 85283; phone: (480) 483-4202; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reported occurrences of seats sliding without passenger input. The cabin seat track locking mechanism was found to jam in isolated conditions during taxi, take-off, and landing (TTOL). This proposed AD would require modifying or replacing each affected seat. This proposed AD would also prohibit the installation of affected
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 26, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-288-7368; 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 Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-288-7368; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0200, dated September 17, 2025; corrected September 30, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0200) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states that occurrences were reported of seats sliding without passenger input. The cabin seat track locking mechanism was found to jam in isolated conditions during TTOL. If not corrected, this condition could lead to failure of the affected seat to remain in its position during critical phases of flight, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2025-0200 specifies procedures for modifying each affected seat (any single seat assembly and any double seat assembly having part numbers and serial numbers listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of Appendix 1 of EASA AD 2025-0200). EASA AD 2025-0200 allows replacing each affected seat with a serviceable seat in lieu of modifying the seat. EASA also prohibits the installation of affected seats.
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 EASA AD 2025-0200 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 incorporate EASA AD 2025-0200 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0200 in its entirety through that
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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 26, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X, MYSTERE-FALCON 900, FALCON 900EX, FALCON 2000, and FALCON 2000EX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reported occurrences of seats sliding without passenger input. The cabin seat track locking mechanism was found to jam in isolated conditions during taxi, take-off, and landing. The FAA is issuing this AD to address seats sliding without passenger input. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to failure of the affected seat to remain in its position during critical phases of flight, resulting in possible injury to passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0200, dated September 17, 2025; corrected September 30, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0200).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0200 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0200 defines the SB as “Dassault Service Bulletin (SB) SB 7X-556 Revision (Rev.) 1 or SB F2000EX-497 Rev. 1, as applicable”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin 7X-556, dated December 5, 2023, or Revision (Rev.) 1, dated July 3, 2024, or Rev. 2, dated July 25, 2025; or Dassault Aviation Service Bulletin F2000EX-497, dated December 5, 2023, or Rev. 1, dated July 3, 2024, or Rev 2, dated July 25, 2025; as applicable”.
(3) Where EASA AD 2025-0200 defines serviceable seat as “Any single seat assembly P/N 3ABF0107( ) and double seat assembly P/N 3ABF0207( ), which is not an affected part”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Any single seat assembly P/N 3ABF0107( ) and double seat assembly P/N 3ABF0207( ), which is not an affected seat”.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0200.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0200 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-288-7368; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0200, dated September 17, 2025; corrected September 30, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; 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
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The Census Bureau is proposing to add two new parts to the Code of Federal Regulations governing the decennial census of population and housing. First, the Census Bureau is proposing to add a part outlining the residence criteria used for identifying each person's “usual residence,” as needed to determine whether and where to count them in the census of the population throughout the United States. Second, the Census Bureau is proposing to add a part establishing standards and restrictions for the inclusion of certain demographic questions on the decennial census short-form questionnaire and any other questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population. The Census Bureau is considering these two additions to better prioritize and fulfill its Constitutional mandate to count for apportionment the “whole number of persons in each State” based on the concept of “usual residence”—a process that factors in an element of allegiance but otherwise should be colorblind and should not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics, such as race. Although these two parts are somewhat related and complementary, each is being proposed independently based on its own merits. These proposals are intended to ensure fidelity to the Constitution, improve and protect the core decennial census data, and promote efficiency.
To ensure consideration during the decision-making process, comments must be received by October 13, 2026.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket number USBC-2026-0628, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for this action is available from
Daniel Sweeney, Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, at (301) 996-3533.
For the decennial census, the Census Bureau is committed to counting every person who should be counted
The concept of “usual residence” was established by the First Congress in the First Census Act on March 1, 1790. Specifically, section 5 of the First Census Act established that each
For example, prior to 1970, with a one-time exception for the 1900 decennial census, the Census Bureau did not allocate any Federal personnel who were stationed overseas as of the date of the census to any particular State for apportionment purposes.
The term [“usual residence”] can mean more than mere physical presence, and has been used broadly enough to include some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place. . . . In this case, the Secretary of Commerce made a judgment, consonant with, though not dictated by, the text and history of the Constitution, that many federal employees temporarily stationed overseas had retained their ties to the States and could and should be counted toward their States' representation in Congress . . . .
Consistent with this history, every ten years, the Census Bureau must settle on and apply a set of residence criteria to determine each person's “usual residence.” In recent history, it is typical for that set of residence criteria to contain specific rules for, among other groups, college students,
For example, in the lead up to the 2020 decennial census, the Census Bureau settled on the following residence criterion for foreign citizens who were present in the United States as of April 1, 2020, and who were not members of any foreign diplomatic staff:
• Foreign citizens “
• Foreign citizens “
Notably, that residence criterion did not call for any difference in treatment between foreign citizens present in the United States legally and those present illegally—a category of individuals sometimes referred to as “removable aliens.”
One of the primary legal arguments against including illegal aliens in the apportionment count is rooted in the understanding that the term “persons,” as used in the Apportionment Clause of Article I, Section 2, was deliberately chosen instead of “citizens” to reflect the Three-Fifths Compromise but nonetheless was largely informed by (and synonymous with) the term “inhabitants,” which was historically understood to refer to members of the body politic.
Considering all of the above, the Census Bureau now proposes to formalize, by regulation, the residence criteria found below for decennial census enumeration moving forward. This proposed set of criteria is different from—and excludes certain criteria that were included in—the set of residence criteria for 2020. These proposed criteria reflect the Census Bureau's interpretation of the applicable laws as well as various operational and practical considerations.
In particular, the Census Bureau finds merit in the interpretive argument outlined above and has preliminarily determined that, under the best reading of the Constitutional mandate, illegal aliens (among others) should not be included in the apportionment count, as they are not true inhabitants, members of the body politic, or persons with a “usual residence” in the United States due to their lack of a sufficient tie and allegiance to the United States. Additionally and/or in the alternative, the Census Bureau has preliminarily determined, after revisiting and reviewing the applicable law, that excluding illegal aliens (among others) from the apportionment count is a lawful and appropriate exercise of the Census Bureau's discretion under 13 U.S.C. 141,
The Census Bureau is considering how best to distinguish between foreign citizens in the United States who are counted for apportionment and those who are not counted for apportionment. In particular, the Census Bureau is considering utilizing its enormously broad access to administrative records to determine an individual's legal status. The Census Bureau has access to a vast and expanding universe of records and information that includes, but is not limited to, Department of Treasury records; Department of Health and Human Services records; Department of Homeland Security records; Department of State records; Department of War records; U.S. Postal Service records; certain state, local, and tribal records; and third-party commercial data. The Census Bureau's administrative record holdings is nearly exhaustive of the civilian Federal government's holdings, and the Census Bureau is continually searching for new sources of information and routinely entering into and/or updating agreements with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and other entities to expand its access to information.
The Census Bureau could, in addition, include a question about legal status on the short-form decennial census questionnaire. The Enumeration Clause “permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.”
The Census Bureau is also proposing to define the relevant “census enumeration period” to run from January 3 to April 1 during decennial census years. January 3 is the start of the congressional term during odd-numbered years under the Twentieth Amendment and, thus, the half-way point of the congressional term during even-numbered years. April 1 is the reference date for the decennial census under 13 U.S.C. 141(a). The Census Bureau has preliminarily determined that considering information pertaining to this period would be sufficient and appropriate for purposes of making a holistic determination about a person's “usual residence” as of April 1, and that clearly defining a relevant period leading up to April 1 is preferable to leaving the issue open-ended and uncertain. To be clear, however, this definition of the “census enumeration period” would not restrict the Census Bureau from collecting information after April 1
The Census Bureau is making this overall proposal regarding the residence criteria independent of the proposal regarding demographic questions, which is discussed in greater detail below. If any provision of either proposal is stayed or determined to be invalid or unenforceable as applied to any person or circumstance in any jurisdiction, such stay or determination shall not affect the remainder of that proposal or any provision of the other proposal.
The Census Bureau invites the public to comment on these proposed residence criteria.
As discussed above, the fundamental purpose of the decennial census, as
Separate from these aforementioned mandates, the decennial census questionnaires historically have also been used as a vehicle for collecting demographic information about the population of the United States. Indeed, “demographic questions have been asked in
Whether generally authorized or specifically required (as it has been at times in the past) by Congress, the collection of such data does not, by itself, advance the fundamental, Constitutional purpose of the decennial census, which is to conduct an enumeration to ascertain the population count for apportionment.
Furthermore, each demographic question that is included on the decennial census increases the likelihood that the data of certain people who
In addition to disclosure risk, the Census Bureau also is considering the (potentially) sensitive nature of questions about race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Substantial doubts about the meaning, significance, and impact of attempting to categorize persons by race and ethnicity,
For all these reasons, the Census Bureau is re-evaluating the proper role of these demographic questions and proposes to establish, by regulation, the standards articulated below, which would prohibit the inclusion of questions about race and ethnicity or sexual orientation on the decennial census short-form questionnaire or any questionnaire used for purposes of the enumeration. Excluding such questions from the decennial census in this manner would reduce response burden as well as the risk of disclosure.
Simplifying the short-form questionnaire in this manner also reflects the Census Bureau's plans to increase its use of administrative records for conducting the decennial census. Data from administrative records can fill information gaps, thereby reducing response burden and operational costs. Administrative records sourced from other governmental agencies—including certain tax-return information—can serve as reliable evidence for certain purposes.
The Census Bureau is making this proposal regarding demographic questions independent of the proposal regarding residence criteria, which is discussed in greater detail above. If any provision of either proposal is stayed or determined to be invalid or unenforceable as applied to any person or circumstance in any jurisdiction, such stay or determination shall not affect the remainder of that proposal or any provision of the other proposal.
The Census Bureau invites the public to comment on this proposal regarding demographic questions.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). This proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, although not economically significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please see the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, posted together with this proposed rule, for additional information on the potential impacts of this rulemaking.
Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025,
A preliminary determination of whether a final rule here would be considered regulatory, deregulatory, or partially or fully exempt from the requirements of E.O. 14192 will be made when any final rule in this rulemaking is issued.
The Deputy General Counsel for Economic, Statistical, and Regulatory Affairs certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification follows. A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from
This proposed rule, if adopted, would govern the manner in which the Census Bureau collects data via the decennial census. No other public or private entity would be directly regulated. Although the proposed rule could impact the information available to some small entities, any resulting impacts would be indirect. To the extent that small governmental entities, as defined by the RFA, may use information collected by the decennial census to obtain funding, that information would remain available or could be obtained in other ways and/or the impact from any lack of information would be indirect.
This proposal is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because it does not include a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The U.S. Census Bureau plans to formally notify federally recognized and state recognized tribes and conduct a tribal consultation regarding the proposed regulations.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposed rule would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State, local, or Tribal governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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 Census Bureau is seeking public comment on respondent burden reduction estimates resulting from this proposal.
Census, Decennial census, Residence criteria, Residence rules, Usual residence, Enumeration, Data collection, Administrative practice and procedure.
Census, Decennial census, Demographic data, Race and ethnicity, Data collection, Confidentiality, Privacy, Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Census Bureau proposes to add parts 60 and 70 to Subtitle B, Chapter I of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:
13 U.S.C. 4 and 141.
This part sets forth the criteria used by the Census Bureau to determine each individual's place of “usual residence,” as needed to determine whether and where to count each individual as part of the decennial census for purposes of apportionment.
(a) A person's “usual residence” is the residence at which they have lawfully spent the greatest number of days during the census enumeration period. A person's “usual residence” should be consistent with, and evidenced by, their tax records (
(b) A person is considered to have spent a day at a residence if he or she spent at least one hour physically and lawfully present there that day. A person may spend a certain day at more than one residence.
(c) The census enumeration period runs from January 3 to April 1 during decennial census years. April 1 is referred to as “Census Day.”
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
If any criterion or provision of this part is stayed or determined to be invalid or unenforceable as applied to any person or circumstance in any jurisdiction, such stay or determination shall not affect the remainder of this part or the application of the criterion or provision at issue to other persons or circumstances and/or in other jurisdictions. In the event of such a stay or determination, the remaining criteria and provisions of this part shall continue in effect to the maximum extent possible.
13 U.S.C. 4, 5, and 141.
This part sets forth restrictions on the inclusion of certain demographic questions on the decennial census short-form questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population. These restrictions are meant to ensure that certain demographic questions do not undermine or distort the fundamental, Constitutional purpose of the decennial census: to conduct a population count for purposes of congressional apportionment.
(a) No question about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation shall appear on the short form decennial census questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population.
(b) Questions about biological sex, date of birth, and household relationships may be included on the decennial census questionnaire for the sake of facilitating data verification for the enumeration of the population.
(c) With the exception of questions about biological sex, date of birth, and household relationships, no person shall be obligated to furnish a response to any demographic question as part of the decennial census.
(d) Questions that seek information related to the application of the residence criteria are not considered demographic questions subject to the restrictions of this part.
(a) In conducting and furnishing the results of the decennial census, the Census Bureau shall at all times prioritize the accuracy of the population count for purposes of apportionment and (re)districting, subject to the confidentiality restrictions of 13 U.S.C. 9.
(b) The Census Bureau shall not disclose or publish any individual demographic data if such disclosure or publication necessitates introducing uncertainty into the population count data, at either the national or the state level.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to restrict the Census Bureau's ability to ask demographic questions on the American Community Survey or any other surveys that are not used for the enumeration of the population, or to receive demographic data from other sources.
If any provision of this part is stayed or determined to be invalid or unenforceable as applied to any person or circumstance in any jurisdiction, such stay or determination shall not affect the remainder of this part or the application of the provision at issue to other persons or circumstances and/or in other jurisdictions. In the event of such a stay or determination, the remaining provisions of this part shall continue in effect to the maximum extent possible.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; withdrawal of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive petition (FAP 2323) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of hydrolyzed lignin as a source of neutral detergent soluble fiber in food for broiler chickens, laying hens, turkeys, growing swine, sows, lactating dairy cows, beef cattle, sheep, goats, salmonids, and adult dogs at no more than 1% of the food on a weight basis or 10 kilograms per metric ton of food.
The food additive petition was withdrawn on July 29, 2026.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Ms. Megan Hall, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Drive, College Park, MD 20740, 301-796-4092,
In a notice published in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are reopening the public comment period on our June 17, 2025, proposed rule to remove the Gila chub (
The public comment period on the proposed rule that published June 17, 2025, at 90 FR 25552, is reopened. We will accept comments received on or before September 25, 2026. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
To ensure your comment is received and considered, you must submit it using one of the methods identified in the
•
•
Comments submitted through any method not authorized in this document, or sent to an address not listed here, will not be considered. We will not accept comments via email, fax, or hand delivery. We are not required to consider comments that are submitted after the comment period ends or that are submitted via a method outside of these instructions. Comments containing profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate content will not be considered.
We will post all comments on
Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, U.S.
On June 17, 2025, we published a proposed rule (90 FR 25552) to delist the Gila chub. The proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment period, ending on August 18, 2025. We find there is good cause to reopen the comment period in order to fulfill our statutory obligations to give notice of any proposed delisting rule, as well as allowing the public an additional opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule for the Gila chub.
For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the Gila chub and more information on the types of comment that would be helpful to us in promulgating this rulemaking action, please refer to the June 17, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 25552 at 25553-25554).
If you already submitted comments or information on the June 17, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 25552), please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in preparation for our final determination.
Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include supplemental information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You must submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the June 17, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 25552), will be available for public inspection on
Our final determination may differ from the June 17, 2025, proposed rule because we will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well as any information that may become available after the proposal. Based on the new information we receive, we may conclude that the species should remain listed as endangered, or we may conclude that the species should be reclassified from endangered to threatened. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from the June 17, 2025, proposed rule.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would withhold a portion of the commercial allocation of Gulf of America (Gulf) red grouper for the 2027 fishing year in anticipation of the upcoming rulemaking to implement Amendment 63 to the FMP (Amendment 63). If implemented by NMFS, Amendment 63 would establish a pilot program for setting aside a portion of the red grouper commercial quota for a quota pool. This proposed rule would withhold a portion of the red grouper commercial quota for the 2027 fishing year in the amount necessary to establish that quota pool. This withheld quota would otherwise be allocated to shareholders in the Individual Fishing Quota program for Gulf grouper and tilefishes (GT-IFQ) program on January 1, 2027.
Written comments must be received on or before October 13, 2026.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
•
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Frank Helies, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red grouper, is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and NMFS, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Unless otherwise noted, all weights in this proposed rule are in pounds (lb) gutted weight.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and the regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to food production and providing recreational opportunities, and to protect marine ecosystems.
This action is taken under the statutory authority of Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b)(14) to prescribe measures determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery.
The most recent stock assessment for Gulf red grouper (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 88) was completed in 2025. The stock assessment results indicated an increase in the red grouper stock size relative to the previous assessment (SEDAR 61, 2019). Based on its review of that assessment, the Council's Standing Scientific and Statistical Committee determined that the stock was not overfished or undergoing overfishing and recommended increases to the overfishing limit and acceptable biological catch relative to the current harvest limits. In January 2026, the Council approved for NMFS review and implementation substantial increases to the red grouper catch limits in Amendment 62 to the FMP (Amendment 62). The notice of availability for Amendment 62 published in the
In anticipation of the substantial red grouper commercial quota increase authorized in Amendment 62 and the desire to improve opportunity for participants to enter the GT-IFQ program and reduce bycatch, Amendment 63 would establish a pilot program for setting aside a portion of the increase in red grouper commercial quota for a quota pool. Amendment 63 considers the amount of quota in the quota pool, the eligibility criteria for participation in the quota pool, and the percentages of quota to be distributed to shareholders and non-shareholders, along with the method through which distribution would occur. Amendment 63 is intended to establish a 3-year pilot program for the 2027, 2028, and 2029 fishing years, using the substantial increase in red grouper quota as an opportunity to test a new mechanism to distribute allocation with the intention to improve opportunities for participation in the GT-IFQ program and reduce bycatch and discards of IFQ species. The quota pool would not change the total commercial quota established in Amendment 62 but would distribute a portion of the quota based on the criteria selected in Amendment 63.
The Council approved Amendment 63 at its June 2026 meeting for submission and subsequent implementation by NMFS. Among other measures, Amendment 63 defines the red grouper commercial quota thresholds that must be met for there to be a red grouper quota pool. In Amendment 63, for there to be a quota pool, the commercial quota must be greater than 4.28 million lb (1.94 million kg) and, if so, then the quota pool allocation is equal to 50 percent of the commercial quota that is greater than 4.28 million lb (1.94 million kg). For fishing year 2027, since Amendment 62 would set the commercial quota at 4.83 million lb (2.19 million kg), the available commercial quota for the quota pool that would be established in Amendment 63 would be 50 percent of the difference between 4.83 million lb (2.19 million kg) and 4.28 million lb (1.94 million kg). This difference is 550,000 lb (249,476 kg), 50 percent of which is 275,000 lb (124,738 kg). Therefore, for fishing year 2027, 275,000 lb (124,738 kg) would be the available commercial quota for the quota pool. An electronic copy of Amendment 63 is available from the Southeast Regional Office website at:
If approved, this framework action would take effect after Amendment 62 becomes effective but would still take effect before the end of 2026. The anticipated timeline for approval and implementation of Amendment 63 would not allow NMFS to implement the proposed quota pool until after the annual distribution of allocation to the red grouper IFQ shareholders on January 1, 2027. In the GT-IFQ program, NMFS is not able to reduce commercial quota (allocation) once it has already been distributed for a fishing year. This proposed rule would provide the Southeast Regional Administrator the authority to withhold a portion of the red grouper 2027 commercial quota in anticipation of the implementation of Amendment 63 in 2027.
If implemented, this proposed rule would withhold 275,000 lb (124,738 kg) of the 2027 IFQ distribution of the red grouper commercial quota on January 1, 2027. If a final rule to implement Amendment 63 is not effective by May 1, 2027, NMFS would distribute withheld 2027 IFQ allocation of red grouper to the current shareholders based on their current shares held as of the date of distribution.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In
The Senior Lead Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification follows. All monetary estimates in the following analysis are in 2024 dollars.
A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the
This proposed rule would provide the Southeast Regional Administrator the authority to withhold a portion of the red grouper 2027 commercial quota in anticipation of the implementation of Amendment 63 to the FMP.
The proposed changes to the distribution of the red grouper commercial quota would apply to red grouper IFQ shareholders, as well as commercial fishing businesses that fish for red grouper in Federal waters of the Gulf. None of the proposed changes would directly apply to federally permitted dealers. Any change in the supply of Gulf red grouper available for purchase by dealers as a result of this proposed rule, and associated economic effects, would be an indirect effect of the proposed rule and would therefore fall outside the scope of the RFA.
The RFA requires NMFS to describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6)).
As of July 8, 2021, there were 825 limited access valid or renewable Federal commercial Gulf reef fish permits. In order to commercially harvest Gulf red grouper, a vessel permit must also be linked to an IFQ account and possess sufficient allocation for this species. IFQ accounts can be opened, and valid permits can be linked to IFQ accounts, at any time during the year. Eligible vessels can receive red grouper allocation from other IFQ participants. On average from 2020 through 2024, there were 671 IFQ accounts that held red grouper allocation and 68 percent of those held red grouper shares. During the same period, there were 324 federally permitted commercial reef fish vessels with reported landings of red grouper in the Gulf on average each year. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2020 through 2024 was approximately $137,779 and Gulf red grouper landings accounted for approximately 34 percent of this revenue. From 2020 through 2024, the maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of the commercial vessels that landed Gulf red grouper was approximately $1.24 million in 2022. Economic profits for these commercial vessels are estimated to be 28.1 percent of their annual gross revenue ($38,716 per vessel) during this period. Although many fishing businesses own only one permitted vessel, some hold or own multiple permits and vessels. Since comprehensive ownership data are currently unavailable for vessels harvesting Gulf red grouper, this analysis assumes that each of the 324 vessels is independently owned by a single business. This assumption is expected to result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule. Additionally, 150 IFQ shareholder accounts, on average from 2020 through 2024, possessed red grouper shares but did not report any landings of red grouper. The account holders either transferred red grouper allocation only or were inactive. It is assumed that each of these accounts is independently owned by a single business as well. Revenue and cost data are not collected directly from IFQ shareholders; therefore, estimates of economic profits for the Gulf red grouper IFQ commercial fishing businesses that did not report landings are unavailable.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard.
The proposed rule would specifically authorize the Southeast Regional Administrator to withhold 275,000 lb (124,738 kg) of the 2027 IFQ distribution of the red grouper commercial quota on January 1, 2027. If a final rule to implement Amendment 63 is not effective by May 1, 2027, NMFS would distribute this withheld 2027 IFQ allocation of red grouper to the current shareholders based on their current shares held as of the date of distribution. From 2020 through 2024, the average annual red grouper quota utilization rate was approximately 89 percent, indicating that 11 percent of the red grouper quota remains unharvested at the end of each year, and a much larger percentage remains available at the 4-month mark during the fishing year. Furthermore, if implemented, Amendment 62 to the FMP will increase the commercial red grouper quota by 2.04 million lb (0.93 million kg) in 2027 when compared to the current quota of 2.79 million lb (1.27 million kg). In 2016, a 2.06 million lb (0.93 million kg) increase in the commercial red grouper quota resulted in a 17 percent decline in the quota utilization rate in 2017. As such, implementation of Amendment 62 is expected to cause a comparable decline in the current quota utilization rate. Thus, it is likely that withholding a portion of the quota for 4 months in 2027 would not result in adverse economic effects from delayed red grouper harvest for the vast majority of participants. For the limited number of shareholders who plan to harvest or sell their allocation immediately upon receipt on January 1, 2027, the temporary withholding of IFQ allocation would result in minor adverse economic effects due to the expected short delay at the beginning of the 2027 fishing year until Amendment 63 is expected to be implemented. Although neither the economic benefits of implementing the red grouper commercial quota pool in 2027 rather than 2028, nor the economic costs of delaying the distribution of a portion of the commercial red grouper quota by 4 months can be quantified at this time, economic losses due to delays in quota distribution are expected to be minor. Further, all withheld quota pounds would either be distributed through the quota pool upon the implementation of Amendment 63 or returned directly to shareholders by May 1, 2027.
Based on the above analysis, this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of America, Red grouper.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(
(
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval for a new information collection from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0581-NEW. This action would create new application and notification forms for growers interested in participating in Specialty Crop Diversion Programs for applicable tree, vine, and/or bush commodities.
Comments on this notice must be received by November 9, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments can be sent to the Docket Clerk, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237. Comments can also be submitted to the Docket Clerk electronically by email:
Taylor Johnson, Marketing Specialist, or Matthew Pavone, Chief, Rulemaking Services Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
Specialty Crop Diversion Programs are expected to bring domestic supplies of applicable specialty crop tree, vine, and/or bush commodities in line with market demands, and to provide relief to specialty crop growers faced with excess acreage and low commodity prices. The Specialty Crop Diversion Programs also ensure that the trees, vines, and/or bushes that are removed are not part of a normal replacement process.
The forms covered under this information collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the Diversion Programs and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of clause (3) of section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935, as amended, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder. These Specialty Crop Diversion Program will not be maintained by any other agency; therefore, the requested information will not be available from any other existing records. These forms have been designated OMB No. 0581-NEW. The forms include: Application for Tree Diversion Program (SC-302A), Application for Vine Diversion Program (SC-302B), Application for Bush Diversion Program (SC-302C), Notification of Tree Removal (SC-303A), Notification of Vine Removal (SC-303B), and Notification of Bush Removal (SC-303C).
The information collected will be used only by authorized commodity/industry staff and authorized representatives of the USDA, including the AMS Specialty Crops Programs regional and headquarters staff. Authorized employees of the commodity/industry are the primary users of the information, and AMS is the secondary user. All information collected will be kept confidential (as indicated on the forms) and will be in conformance with the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
The request for new information collection under the Specialty Crop Diversion Programs is as follows:
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.
Rural Business Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Rural Business Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is announcing the acceptance of Applications for the Agriculture Innovation Center Demonstration (AIC) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2026. In future years this funding opportunity will only be announced on the Agency website and
September 10, 2026.
Full funding notice is available on
Shamika Johnson, Administrative Management Specialist, Intermediary Programs, RBCS, RD, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1560; Telephone: 202-720-1495; Email:
The full text of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is available on the Agency website and on
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice of determination.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) has ceased collection and production of the Annual Survey of State Government Tax Collections (STC). The Census Bureau has redirected its resources to prioritize the Annual Survey of State Government Finances (ASFIN) and the Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue (QTAX). State government tax data previously produced through STC will continue to be made available through ASFIN and QTAX. The survey 2025 data release on April 15, 2026, was the final release.
Michael Reich, Assistant Division Chief, Public Sector, Economy-Wide Statistics Division, Telephone: 301-763-5163; Email:
The Census Bureau produces state government tax estimates via three programs: the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections, the Annual Survey of State Government Finances, and the Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue. The data from these surveys serves a wide variety of data users and meets a wide variety of needs from federal agencies to researchers and academia. The Census Bureau is focused on removing redundancies with the sunsetting of the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections and focusing on data quality of the remaining two programs.
The Annual Survey of State Tax Collections was collected under the authority of Title 13 U.S.C. 182. Section 182 authorizes surveys when “deemed necessary to furnish annual or other interim current data on the subjects covered by the censuses provided for in this title.” Therefore, surveys collected under Section 182 are discretionary, and no current regulations require this survey. Because the Census Bureau can produce estimates of the same quality and content without imposing an additional survey burden, the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections is no longer “necessary to furnish annual or other interim current data” on state taxes.
Determining to eliminate a survey is always a difficult task since there are users of all the data. The Census Bureau has made every effort to determine how data would be impacted and will be mitigating impacts through the programs still produced.
All state tax estimates (5 broad tax categories and up to 25 tax subcategories) currently produced as a part of the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections will still be published as a part of the larger Annual Survey of State Government Finances with no change to current structure. However, this data will be published approximately 9 months later than the traditional STC release, due to the longer processing time for the Annual Survey of State Government Finances. Due to this timing, the Census Bureau will also start producing annualized state government tax estimates as a part of the Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue in 2027. These estimates will be produced approximately 1-4 months earlier than currently produced from the Annual Survey of State Tax Collections and will be created to follow the same fiscal year reporting covered by the sunset program and used as input into state government finance data processing. With this change, all annual tax estimates will be retained and released to the public sooner with a reduction in respondent burden exemplifying the commitment of the Census Bureau to identifying efficiencies while continuing to produce quality data that highlights the public sector.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 45, OMB approved the STC under the OMB control number 0607-0585.
The Board of Habor Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) on behalf of Catalina Cylinders, Inc. (Catalina Cylinders) for Catalina Cylinders's facilities in Garden Grove, California within Subzone 50AJ. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on August 5, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material/component and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is aluminum gas cylinders (duty rate is 5.0%).
The proposed foreign-status material/component is aluminum alloys, unwrought (duty free).
The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 decision requires subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact John Frye at John.
Dongjin Semichem Texas, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Killeen, Texas within FTZ 183. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 3, 2026.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is semiconductor-grade photoresist thinner (duty rate is duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate; ethyl 3-ethoxypropionate; gamma-butyrolactone; methyl 2-hydroxyisobutyrate; ethyl lactate; 2-propoxyethanol; BYK specialty adhesive; and AS-031 specialty adhesive (duty rates range from duty-free to 5%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact John Frye at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that PJSC Stalkanat (Stalkanat) did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 10, 2026.
Samuel Brummitt, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7851.
On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, and in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. We intend to seek further information from PJSC Stalkanat subsequent to the issuance of these preliminary results; therefore, a timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be provided to interested parties at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If Stalkanat's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Stalkanat for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate calculated in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Stalkanat no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following 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 the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of brass rod from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is September 29, 2023, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 10, 2026.
Toni Page or Roee Tenne, AD/CVD Operations, Office OVII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398 or (202) 482-3996, respectively.
On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on brass rod from Korea.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The product covered by this investigation is brass rod from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, September 29, 2023, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties will be notified of the timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments at a later date. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants, and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding BYI and Daechang no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing
Unless the deadline is extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of Commerce's analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025. In addition, we are rescinding the review with respect to Southern Steel Sdn. Bhd. (Southern Steel). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 10, 2026.
Colin Thrasher, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3004.
On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete wire strand (PC strand) from Malaysia.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The merchandise subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review for Southern Steel because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise from it during the POR and invited interested parties to comment.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusion,
The Act does not address the establishment of a rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce's regulation at 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by following the process set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the process for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 735(c)(5) of the Act.
Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.109(f), the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
In this administrative review, we preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, Kiswire and Southern, that are not zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants, and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
If Kiswire and Southern's weighted-average dumping margin are not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Kiswire and Southern for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate calculated in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For Wei Dat, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Non-Individually Examined Companies” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
For Southern Steel, the company for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit rate for estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
The following 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 the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), December 1, 2024, through November 30, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 10, 2026.
Eric Chen, 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) 482-2860.
On February 20, 2026, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (cased pencils) from the People's Republic of China (China).
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we applied our NME methodology in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
In a proceeding involving an NME country, Commerce maintains a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, therefore, should be assessed a single weighted-average dumping margin.
Commerce's policy is to assign all exporters of merchandise under consideration that are in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In order to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status, Commerce normally requires an exporter for which a review was requested, and which was assigned a separate rate in a previous completed segment of the proceeding and which remains active for that exporter, to submit an SRC stating that it continues to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate.
In the
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Because the four companies listed in Appendix II failed to timely file either an SRA or SRC in this review, we preliminarily find that these companies are ineligible for a separate rate and, as such, are part of the China-wide entity.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
For the final results, if we continue to treat the companies identified in Appendix II as part of the China-wide
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
If a timely summons is filed at the CIT, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the existing rate for the China-wide entity of 114.90 percent; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results of review in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
The products covered by the
In addition, pencils with all of the following physical characteristics are excluded from the scope of the
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to Arctic Research Activities (ARA) in the Beaufort Sea and eastern Chukchi Sea.
This authorization is effective from September 14, 2026, through September 13, 2027.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Alyssa Clevenstine, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS shall issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On July 22, 2026, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to ONR for take of marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas was published in the
During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received three comment letters from private citizens. NMFS' consideration of public comments, which we respond to below, did not result in changes to the analysis or findings in the
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination that the take incidental to a “specified activity” will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence uses. NMFS' implementing regulations 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1) require applicants to include in their request a detailed description of the specified activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals. Thus, the “specified activity” for which incidental take coverage is being sought under section 101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the applicant. Here, ONR was the applicant for the IHA, and we are responding to the specified activity as described in that application and making the necessary findings on that basis.
Regarding preparation of an EIS, an EIS is to be prepared when there may be potentially significant impacts to the human environment. There is no such evidence here and the commenter provides none.
As stated in the notice of the proposed IHA, for beluga whale, modeling did not predict take by Level A harassment given that the acoustic sources are continuous with a low duty cycle and relatively short ping duration (4-30 seconds). For ringed seals, as stated in the notice of the proposed IHA, and NMFS does not anticipate, take by Level A harassment, nor does NMFS anticipate TTS from active acoustic sources. Since potentially impactful source levels from acoustic sources would not exceed 185 dB by system design limits, sound exposure levels would remain relatively low. Accounting for source level, spherical spreading, and a 30-second pulse length (table 1), a ringed seal would need to be in very close range of a single ping of an acoustic source to risk exposure at or
In concluding that the Level A harassment estimates are flawed, the commenter incorrectly asserted that Navy's Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO) assumes animals will exhibit active avoidance behavior before reaching injury thresholds. As stated in the Marine Mammal Occurrence and Take Estimation section of the notice of proposed IHA (91 FR 46055, July 22, 2026), NAEMO estimates acoustic effects on marine mammals without consideration of behavioral avoidance or mitigation. Further, the virtual animals (animat dosimeters) within NAEMO do not move horizontally or react in any way to avoid sound, which may overestimate impacts. Of note, NAEMO was only used to model take of beluga whales, and ONR has only reported sightings of beluga whales during transit, not during research activities or icebreaking when acoustic impacts are likely to occur; therefore, NMFS did not propose to authorize take of beluga whale by Level A harassment from active acoustic sources.
For icebreaking, a continuous noise source, modeling for all previous years of ARA icebreaking activities did not result in any estimated take by Level A harassment of marine mammals. Further, the estimated range to TTS is <15 m (see table 5 of the notice of proposed IHA (91 FR 46055, July 22, 2026)), and the range to AUD INJ would be even smaller. Given the proposed icebreaking activities have not changed, neither ONR nor NMFS expect these activities would result in Level A harassment of beluga whales or ringed seals and, therefore, NMFS did not authorize take by Level A harassment from icebreaking.
As described above, NMFS' analysis does not rely on implementation of mitigation measures or animal avoidance to support its conclusion that Level A harassment is not anticipated. Regarding the recommendation that NMFS require PAM on vessels and deployment platforms to supplement visual observers, the commenter does not explain why they expect PAM would be effective in detecting marine mammals nor does NMFS agree that this measure is warranted. The use of PAM on vessels (Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq, U.S. Coast Guard Cutter HEALY, or another vessel) would require significant investment by ONR and the vessel operators for a research cruise that is planned for only 22 days in September-October 2026, and mitigation and monitoring data from past ARA include a limited number of animal detections during transit, acoustic source deployment and recovery, and icebreaking. Further, integrating PAM into all active source operations (
The IHA requires that during moored and drifting acoustic source deployment and recovery, ONR must implement a mitigation zone of 55 m around the deployed source. Deployment and recovery must cease if a marine mammal is visually detected within the mitigation zone. The IHA also includes a condition that vessels must avoid approaching marine mammals head-on and must maneuver to maintain a mitigation zone of 457 m around all observed cetaceans and 183 m around all other observed marine mammals, provided it is safe to do so. These zones appropriately mitigate the potential for acoustic impacts and vessel strike, and the commenter provides no supporting information as to why 500 m would be more appropriate.
All IHAs issued, whether an initial IHA or a renewal, are valid for a period of not more than 1 year. The public has 30 days to comment on proposed IHAs, with a cumulative total of 45 days for IHA renewals. The notice of proposed IHA published in the
While there would be additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying renewal these would be limited to documentation that NMFS would make available and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS would also need to confirm, among other things, that the activities would occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request would also contain a preliminary monitoring report, in order to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period, which includes NMFS' direct notice to anyone who commented on the proposed initial IHA, provides the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information, and comment on whether they think the criteria for a renewal have been met. Combined together, the 30-day public comment period on the initial IHA and the additional 15-day public comment period on the renewal of the same or nearly identical activities, provides the public with a total of 45 days to comment on the potential for renewal of the IHA.
In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, it is also consistent with Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the description of the process and express invitation to comment on specific potential renewals in the Request for Public Comments section of each notice of proposed IHA, the description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the process through responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public review and comment on all proposed IHAs and renewals respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public is “invited and encouraged to participate fully in the agency's decision-making process,” as Congress intended.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined the issuance of this IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531
There is one marine mammal species (Arctic subspecies of ringed seal) with confirmed occurrence in the Study Area that is listed as threatened under the ESA. NMFS AKR issued a Biological Opinion on September 13, 2022, under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to ONR under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS OPR. The Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Arctic ringed seals and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify Arctic ringed seal critical habitat. This conclusion remains applicable to this IHA.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to ONR for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to ARA in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from PetroMarine Services (PM) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Juneau International Airport (JNU) Rock Dump Fuel Terminal Reconstruction Project in Juneau, Alaska (AK). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals incidental to the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be
Comments and information must be received no later than October 13, 2026.
Comments should be addressed to Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Carter Esch, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below (see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3, 216.103).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On February 18, 2026, NMFS received a request from PM for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to vibratory pile driving and removal and impact pile driving associated with the JNU Rock Dump Fuel Terminal reconstruction project in Juneau, AK. Following NMFS' review of the application, PM submitted a revised version on April 20, June 1, and July 27, 2026. The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 28, 2026. PM's request is for take of five species of marine mammals by Level B harassment, and for a subset (harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and Steller sea lions (SSLs)), Level A harassment. Neither PM nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
PM proposes to replace an existing pile-supported T-dock and fuel float and construct improvements to the existing fuel line at the JNU Rock Dump Fuel Terminal Dock on the eastern side of Gastineau Channel near downtown Juneau, AK. The existing pile-supported T-dock and fuel float structures were constructed in 1971 and have exceeded the intended design life for timber structures in a marine environment. Replacing the existing structures and rerouting fuel lines will allow Petro Marine to safely and efficiently operate their fuel supply business.
Activities that have the potential to take marine mammals by Level A harassment and Level B harassment include vibratory pile removal and vibratory and impact pile driving. The specified activities would occur on approximately 81 days over 12 months.
The IHA would be effective upon written notification from PM to NMFS but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. The specified activities are currently scheduled to begin January 1, 2027, and would occur on approximately 81 days (potentially non-consecutive). Pile removal and installation would occur during daylight hours only, which ranges from 8 to 18 hours per day in Juneau, AK, depending upon the season.
The project is located adjacent to downtown Juneau, AK, on the eastern shore of Gastineau Channel. Part of Southeast Alaska's Inside Passage, Gastineau Channel is a U-shaped, glacier-carved, fjord and narrow channel that, at its approximate midpoint, runs between Juneau (on mainland Alaska) and Douglas Island. The channel is approximately 16 miles (25.7 kilometers (km)) long and its width varies between 4,000 to 6,000 feet (ft) (1,219 to 1,829 meters (m)). The southern end of Gastineau Channel meets Stephens Passage, and the northern, shallower end opens into Auke Bay and Lynn Canal. Gastineau Channel experiences tidal ranges of 16.3 ft (4.9 m) (NOAA, 2025). There are 12 documented anadromous fish streams in the vicinity of the project (Alaska Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] 2025a); each
The Juneau waterfront is heavily influenced by industrialization, characterized by a blend of heavy marine industrial activities and significant tourism infrastructure. The waterfront supports commercial seafood processing, fishing, and, historically, major mining operations. The area is frequented by commercial and recreational vessel traffic, most notably large cruise ships.
The JNU Rock Dump Fuel Terminal Reconstruction Project would include reconstruction of a pile-supported T-dock and fuel float and improvements to existing fuel lines. In addition to the T-dock, PM would construct four new dolphins, install a new armor rock revetment to replace a timber-pile retaining wall, and complete upland improvements. Demolition of existing infrastructure (
To complete the project, PM would conduct vibratory pile removal and impact and vibratory pile driving, performed primarily from a crane barge and supported as necessary from shore to install and remove a variety of pile sizes (
PM would remove the existing pile-supported fuel dock, fuel float, mooring and breasting dolphins and timber retaining wall near shore in their entirety using vibratory methods. PM would remove decking and float components first, followed by pile extraction; a barge laden with the demolition waste would be towed to the Seattle area for materials recycle and disposal within an authorized landfill. NMFS does not anticipate take from the barge towing waste, and it is not discussed further.
The new main dock will primarily consist of large diameter steel pipe piles, steel pile caps, timber decking,
PM would install temporary steel piles and template piles using a vibratory hammer to ensure proper positioning of the permanent piles. Permanent piles will be initially installed with vibratory pile driving equipment and then proofed for proper penetration and load capacity with an impact pile driver. Steel pile caps will be field welded to the tops of piles to support timber superstructure and decking. Prefabricated steel catwalks will be placed between the main fuel dock and adjacent breasting and mooring dolphins to provide pedestrian access for tending vessel mooring lines.
Pile quantities and installation methods are summarized in table 1.
Using an excavator along the top of the existing waterfront embankment slope, PM would remove existing embankment fill, which is undersized and prone to coastal erosion, and install approximately 2,200 cubic yards (CY) (1,682 cubic meters (m
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is likely and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, which may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (
As indicated above, table 2 lists the five species (10 total stocks) that temporally and spatially co-occur with the specified activities to the degree that incidental take is likely to occur. All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in table 3 of the IHA application.
While gray whales (
Humpback whales migrate to Southeast Alaska in spring to feed after months of fasting in equatorial breeding grounds in Hawaii and Mexico, although they have been observed in Southeast Alaska year-round (Baker
Peak abundance of humpback whales in Southeast Alaska typically occurs during late summer to early fall. Most humpback whales begin returning to southern breeding grounds in fall or winter. However, due to temporal overlap between whales departing and returning, humpbacks can be found in
Killer whales occur along the entire Alaska coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. In Southeast Alaska, two resident ecotypes (Alaska Resident and Northern Resident) range from the Aleutian Islands to Washington State and two transient populations (West Coast Transient and Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea Transient) are found from California to Southeast Alaska (Young
In southeast Alaska, harbor porpoises from the Northern Southeast Alaska Inland Waters stock utilize coastal waters from Cape Suckling to the Canada border (Dalheim
The majority of Steller sea lions (SSLs) that inhabit Southeast Alaska are part of the Eastern DPS; however, branded individuals from the Western DPS make regular movements across the 144° longitude boundary to the northern “mixing zone” haulouts and rookeries within Southeast Alaska (Jemison
Harbor seals occur year-round in the inside passages of Southeast Alaska and are regularly sighted in Gastineau Channel. Harbor seals forage on fish and invertebrates (Orr
Harbor seals use a variety of terrestrial sites to haul out for resting (year-round), pupping (May-July), and molting (August-September) including tidal and intertidal reefs, beaches, sand bars, and glacial/sea ice. Some sites have traditional/historic value for pupping and molting while others are used as temporary resting sites during seasonal foraging trips. Harbor seals usually give birth to a single pup between May and mid-July; birthing locations are dispersed over several haulout sites and not confined to major rookeries (Klinkhart
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section discusses how components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities are likely to result from impact pile installation and vibratory pile installation and removal. The effects of underwater noise generated by PM's proposed activities have the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area and, for some species/stocks as a result of certain proposed activities, Level A harassment.
There are a variety of types and degrees of effects to marine mammals, prey species, and habitat that could occur as a result of the proposed activities. Below we provide a brief description of the types of sound sources that would be generated by the project, the general impacts from these types of activities, and an analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the project, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.
Activities associated with the PM project that have the potential to incidentally take marine mammals through sound exposure include vibratory removal of timber piles, vibratory installation of steel piles, and impact installation of steel piles. Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into substrate. Vibratory hammers typically produce less sound (
The likely or possible impacts of PM's proposed activities on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment and personnel. However, given that there are no consistent or dedicated pinniped haulouts within the immediate vicinity of any of the six project sites, we have determined that visual and other nonacoustic stressors would be limited, and any impacts on marine mammals are primarily expected to be acoustic in nature.
The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from vibratory and impact pile driving are the means by which marine mammals may be harassed from PM's specified activities. Anthropogenic sounds span a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources, such as those in these projects, can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly, as we do not expect that the use of impact/vibratory hammers is reasonably likely to result in such effects. Potential physiological effects from sound sources, particularly impulsive sound, can range from behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury to the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
Regarding non-acoustic effects, while harbor seals and Steller sea lions are known to haul out in southeast Alaska, there are no rookeries or known dedicated haulouts for either of these species in the immediate vicinity of the project areas (see Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities section). Ultimately, we expect that any visual and/or other non-acoustic stressors would be limited and that any impact on marine mammals would be acoustic in nature.
In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
The degree of effect of an acoustic exposure on marine mammals is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type (
Richardson
Below, we provide additional details regarding potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitats from noise in general, starting with hearing impairment, as well as from the specific activities PM plans to conduct, to the extent it is available.
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the audibility threshold at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser, 2021; Finneran, 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS). PTS is subsequently defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates AUD INJ onset (see Ward
TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024), and is not considered an AUD INJ. Based on data from marine mammal TTS measurements (see Southall
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall
The amount and onset of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group are less hazardous than those near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity (
Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
Exposure to noise also has the potential to behaviorally disturb marine mammals response—in other words, not every response qualifies as behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of a higher level, or accrued across a longer duration, have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Respiration rates vary naturally with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficient to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation, click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is anthropogenic, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one that would be associated with harassment).
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking occurs in the frequency band that the animals utilize and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile driving. The energy distribution of sound from vibratory pile driving covers a broad frequency spectrum and is anticipated to be within the audible range of marine mammals present in the proposed action area. Since noises generated from the proposed construction activities are mostly concentrated at low frequencies (<2 kilohertz (kHz)), these activities likely have less effect on mid-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. Low-frequency noise may also affect communication signals when they occur near the frequency band for noise and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Pinnipeds that occur near the project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction activities that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from these activities. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above airborne acoustic harassment criteria. Although pinnipeds are known to haul out regularly on man-made objects, we believe that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely due to the proximity between the proposed project area and the known haulouts (
We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound.
PM's proposed activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, by increasing in-water SPLs. Increased noise levels may affect the acoustic habitat (refer to masking discussion) and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of near the project areas (see discussion below). During impact and vibratory pile driving or removal, elevated underwater noise levels would ensonify the project areas where both fish and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during the proposed construction activities; however, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and is not expected to result in long-term effects on the individuals or populations.
As previously mentioned, the project area does not contain habitat of known importance, although it is located near an identified feeding BIA for humpback whales in Southeast Alaska, active from May through September (Wild
The total seafloor area likely to be impacted by PM's activities is relatively small compared to the vast foraging area available habitat in Southeast Alaska. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, proposed pile driving at the project site would not be expected to obstruct the movement or migration of marine mammals.
A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area due to the area where piles are installed or removed. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 7.6-m radius around the pile. The sediments of the project site would settle out rapidly when disturbed. Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the pile-driving areas to experience the effects of turbidity, and any pinnipeds could avoid localized turbid areas. Depending on the tidal stage, local strong currents are anticipated to disburse any additional suspended sediments produced by project activities at moderate to rapid rates. Therefore, we expect the impact from increased noise is turbidity levels to be discountable to marine mammals and do not discuss it further.
The potential for prey (
The proposed project will occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. The near-shore and intertidal habitat where the proposed project will occur is an area of relatively high marine vessel traffic. Most marine mammals do not generally use the area within the footprint of the project area. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels during the proposed construction activities. Effects on marine mammals will be limited to temporary displacement from pile installation and removal noise, and effects on prey species will be similarly limited in time and space.
Temporary and localized reduction in water quality will occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect would occur during the installation and removal of piles when seafloor sediments are disturbed. The installation and removal of piles would disturb seafloor sediments and may cause a temporary increase in suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column until gravitational forces cause it to slough off under its own weight. The small resulting sediment plume is expected to settle out of the water column within a few hours. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton, 1993).
Effects to turbidity and sedimentation are expected to be short-term, minor, and localized. Since there may be strong currents in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediments in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels in all construction scenarios. Turbidity within the water column has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area. However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur. Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary. In general, the area likely impacted by the proposed construction activities is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat in Southeast Alaska.
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (
Fishes utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to sounds that are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fishes and fish mortality (summarized in Popper
Fish populations in the proposed project area that serve as marine mammal prey could be temporarily affected by noise from pile installation and removal. The frequency range in which fishes generally perceive underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz (Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish behavior or distribution may change, especially with strong and/or intermittent sounds that could harm fishes. High underwater SPLs have been documented to alter behavior, cause hearing loss, and injure or kill individual fish by causing serious internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Zooplankton is a food source for several marine mammal species, as well as a food source for fish that are then preyed upon by marine mammals. Population effects on zooplankton could have indirect effects on marine mammals. Data are limited on the effects of underwater sound on zooplankton species, particularly sound from construction (Erbe
The greatest potential impact to marine mammal prey during construction would occur during impact pile driving. Impact and vibratory pile driving and removal could possibly elicit behavioral reactions from fishes such as temporary avoidance of the area but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes or have persistent effects on local fish populations. However, generally, the duration of impact pile driving would be limited to the final stage of installation (“proofing”) after the pile has been driven as close as practicable to the design depth with a vibratory driver (where necessary). In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, allowing fish to forage and transit the project area in the evening.
Construction likely would have minimal permanent and temporary impacts on benthic invertebrate species, a marine mammal prey source. In addition, it should be noted that the area in question is considered low-quality habitat since it is already highly developed and experiences a high level of anthropogenic noise from normal operations and other vessel traffic.
There are several fish species near Juneau for which NMFS has identified Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), including: chinook salmon (
The proposed project is not expected to result in any habitat related effects that could cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, since installation and removal of in-water piles would be temporary and intermittent. The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is an exceedingly small area compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals outside this project area. Although most of Southeast Alaska is identified as a BIA for humpback whales (Wild
There are times of known seasonal marine mammal foraging in Southeast Alaska around fish processing/hatchery infrastructure or when fish are congregating, but the affected areas of Southeast Alaska are a small portion of the total foraging habitat available in the region. In general, effects on marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe of the project and the small project footprint.
Increased turbidity from construction activities can adversely affect forage fish and juvenile salmonid out-migratory routes in the project area. Both herring and salmon form a significant prey base for Steller sea lions, whereas herring is the primary prey species of humpback whales; both herring and salmon are components of the diet of many other marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to occur near construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates, any effects on forage fish and salmon are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect, limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to differ from the current exposure; fish of the disturbed area and marine mammals in the Southeast Alaska region are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from glacial sources.
In summary, given the temporary nature of the construction project and relatively small areas being affected, the pile driving installation and removal activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat or populations of fish species. The most likely impact to fishes at the project site would be temporary avoidance of the area. The most likely impact on fish from pile driving and removal activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance in this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to regular recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish in disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we preliminarily conclude that the impacts of the specified activities are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to the adverse effects on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Takes proposed for authorization would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source or exposure context (
PM's proposed activities include the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and removal) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (NOAA, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). PM's proposed activities include the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving) sources.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in the table below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
Transmission Loss (
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source depends on various factors, most notably the water bathymetry and the presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions, including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used in coastal waters, such as those found in the PM JNU Rock Dump Fuel Terminal Reconstruction Project area. In these environments, sound waves repeatedly reflect off the surface and bottom, reflecting an expected propagation environment between spherical and cylindrical spreading-loss conditions. Therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment threshold isopleths.
Assuming practicable spreading and other assumptions regarding the source characteristics and operational logistics (
Using the practical spreading model, NMFS determined that the underwater noise would yield the following calculated distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds for marine mammals (table 7).
In this section, we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information, which will inform the take calculations. Available information regarding marine mammal occurrence in the project area includes monitoring data, previous monitoring reports, and consultation with local researchers and marine professionals. Occurrence estimates for each species
Humpback whales are common in southeast Alaska, especially during the summer, but they rarely transit through Gastineau Channel, with only occasional sightings (PND Engineers, 2026). During monitoring conducted by previous IHA holders, sightings either did not occur or were rare (City of Borough of Juneau (CBJ), Docks & Harbors, 2018; CBJ, Docks & Harbors, 2020; CBJ, Docks & Harbors, 2024; Sailfin Marine Observing & Consulting, LLC, 2021; Uchytil, Michrowski, and Easterly, 2020). However, anecdotal reports indicate humpback whales do intermittently pass through the project area near downtown Juneau (PND Engineers, 2026). NMFS estimates three individual humpback whales would occur per month in the Level B harassment zone.
Killer whales occasionally occur in Gastineau Channel. Killer whale sightings in the project area reported in Happy Whale include 2019 and 2020 sightings of four and seven individuals, respectively, followed by sightings of a single individual near the Juneau-Douglas Bridge in March 2021 and another sighting of seven individuals in May 2021 (PND Engineers, 2026). NMFS reviewed eight Protected Species Observer (PSO) monitoring reports from the Juneau area (including Auke Bay, north of the Gastineau Channel) from 2019-2024. Three out of the eight reports included sightings of killer whales. Over a collective 254 days of monitoring, PSOs observed six groups of killer whales (group sizes ranged from two to six) for a total of 25 killer whales, or approximately 0.1 whales per day (25 whales/254 days or 3 whales per month). The maximum group size among anecdotal and monitoring reports was 7 individuals. Recognizing the frequency of occurrence is variable and killer whales can be present more frequently in summer for which data is lacking, NMFS estimates one group of seven individuals would occur per month (or more than one group of a smaller number of individuals) in the Level B harassment zone.
Sightings of harbor porpoises near downtown Juneau are relatively rare, although there are occasional reports of groups of two to four animals in Gastineau Channel. In September of 1992, the National Marine Mammal Laboratory Harbor Porpoise Vessel observed two harbor porpoises in Gastineau Channel southeast of downtown Juneau near the community of Thane (Global Biodiversity Information Center (GBIF) 2025). PSOs monitoring during construction of the Downtown Juneau Waterfront Improvements Project in February 2020 detected a group of four harbor porpoises (Uchytil, Michrowski, and Easterly, 2020). No harbor porpoises were sighted during marine mammal monitoring for the Aurora Harbor Rebuild—Phase II project between November 2017 and March 2018 (CBJ, Docks & Harbors, 2018). Alaska Fish and Wildlife News describes observations of a pair of harbor porpoises near the Juneau-Douglas Bridge in February 2024 (ADF&G, 2024). NMFS estimates one group of four individuals per month would occur in the Level B harassment zone.
Although rare near downtown Juneau, SSL sightings do occur regularly in Gastineau Channel. The Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Inc. (DIPAC) salmon hatchery is located along the Gastineau Channel, approximately 5.5 km (3.4 mi) northwest of downtown Juneau. DIPAC staff noted that in the summer (July through September) they see one to two SSLs per day in the water near the hatchery. Outside of those months, staff estimate they only see one to two SSLs for the remainder of the year (PND Engineers, 2026). During marine mammal monitoring over 58 days for the Downtown Juneau Waterfront Improvements Project in 2020, PSOs sighted a group of eight SSLs in February; no other SSLs were reported from December through the project completion in April (Uchytil, Michrowski, and Easterly, 2020). SSLs were observed on three occasions during monitoring for the Aurora Harbor Rebuild—Phase II project: a single adult in November; a group of three in December; and a single adult in February. The group of three SSLs was observed milling near the mouth of Kowee Creek just north of the Juneau-Douglas Bridge (CBJ, Docks & Harbors 2018). PSOs monitoring during a dredging project in December 2024, noted a single adult female traveling northwest in the Gastineau Channel near DIPAC; no other SSLs were observed in the area during the project (City & Borough of Juneau, Docks and Harbors, 2025). Given the proximity of the PM project area to DIPAC, NMFS estimates that two individuals per day would occur in the Level B harassment zone.
Harbor seals are one of the most frequently sighted marine mammals in the project area. During marine mammal monitoring for the Downtown Juneau Waterfront Improvements Project in 2020, harbor seals were present in the project area on most days, and the monitoring report suggests that a resident group of around 10-12 harbor seals uses Gastineau Channel in the winter (Uchytil, Michrowski, and Easterly 2020). During marine mammal monitoring for the Aurora Harbor Rebuild—Phase II Project between November 2017 and March 2018, 466 harbor seals were sighted over approximately 273 observation hours (CBJ, Docks & Harbors 2018). PSOs sighted a total of 17 harbor seals over approximately 32 of monitoring during the Aurora Harbor Rebuild—Phase III project in December 2023 through February 2024 (CBJ, Docks & Harbors, 2024). All sightings were of single individuals, except for one sighting of a pair (CBJ, Docks & Harbors, 2024). A total of 26 harbor seals were observed over 12.5 hours of monitored construction for the Harris Harbor Pile Driving project in February 2021. PSOs for the project note that these sightings were likely of the same few individuals and estimated that there were approximately three to five individual resident harbor seals in the project area in Harris Harbor (Sailfin Marine Observing & Consulting, LLC. 2021). Harbor seals haul out on the shoals near DIPAC (Alaska Fisheries Science Center [AFSC] 2025). This area is not known to be a key haulout for harbor seals; however, moderate numbers of seals move up Gastineau Channel toward this haulout during hatchery releases. Using marine mammal monitoring data collected during construction of previous projects near downtown Juneau, PM calculated the average number of harbor seals sighted per day across the observation periods (n=18). Based on PM's calculation, NMFS estimates 18 harbor seals per day would occur in the Level B harassment zone.
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Estimated take was calculated based on either daily or monthly occurrence estimates for each species, using the following formulas:
The equation for daily estimated take was used for species whose occurrence
While NMFS expects take to be primarily by Level B harassment, PM requested, and NMFS is proposing to authorize take by Level A harassment (AUD INJ) for three species: harbor porpoise, harbor seal, and Steller sea lion.
NMFS does not anticipate that harbor porpoises would incur AUD INJ incidental to PM's construction activities. Harbor porpoises are behaviorally sensitive species, and it is well documented they exhibit strong avoidance reactions to noise such as pile driving. It is unlikely that a harbor porpoise would occur and remain within the Level A harassment zone for a long enough duration to incur AUD INJ. However, PM requested take of harbor porpoise by Level A harassment, citing the following reasons. For impact pile driving activities, PM is proposing a 300-m shutdown zone that is smaller than the largest Level A harassment zones which, depending on the pile type, range from 808 m to 1,545 m. Additionally, harbor porpoises are small, cryptic, and surface briefly, which can limit the probability of detection by PSOs at distances greater than a few hundred meters, particularly when sighting conditions are suboptimal (
For harbor seals, the proposed 25-m shutdown zone for impact pile driving is small compared to the Level A harassment zones, which range from 525 m to 1,000 m. PM anticipates, and NMFS concurs, that harbor seals could enter the Level A harassment zone and remain in the zone for a long enough duration to incur PTS. As indicated in table 6, impact pile driving would be conducted on 47 of the 81 (
PM requested authorization of several instances of take by Level A harassment for SSLs due to the species' crypticity, potentially high abundance during the construction period, and the project's proximity to foraging habitat. SSLs can be difficult to detect in water because they surface briefly and provide only a small surface expression. Given PM's construction schedule, project activities could overlap peaks in SSL abundance (
No Level A harassment is anticipated for killer whales or humpback whales. Both species are large bodied with pronounced external blows and are, thus, more easily detected by PSOs. Additionally, the proposed shutdown zones for each species are equal to or exceed the Level A harassment zones for the relevant hearing group.
Table 8 summarizes take by both Level A harassment (AUD INJ) and Level B harassment proposed to be authorized, as well as estimated takes as a percentage of stock abundance.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
The mitigation requirements described in the following were proposed by PM in its adequate and complete application or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and PM. PM has agreed that all of the mitigation measures are practicable. NMFS has fully reviewed the specified activities and the mitigation measures to determine if the mitigation measures would result in the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals and their habitat, as required by the MMPA, and has determined the proposed measures are appropriate. NMFS describes these below as proposed mitigation requirements and has included them in the proposed IHA.
In addition to the measures described later in this section, PM would follow these general mitigation measures:
• Ensure that construction supervisors and crews, the marine mammal monitoring team, and relevant staff are trained prior to the start of all construction activities, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures are clearly understood. New personnel joining during the project must be trained prior to commencing work;
• Employ PSOs and establish monitoring locations as described in the Protected Species Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PSMMP). PM must monitor the project area to the maximum extent possible based on the required number of PSOs, required monitoring locations, and environmental conditions; and
• PM also would abide by the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions of a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement, if issued by NMFS, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
Additionally, the following mitigation measures apply to PM's in-water construction activities.
PM proposed and NMFS would require the establishment of the clearance and shutdown zones identified in table 9 for all pile driving activities. The purpose of a clearance zone is to prevent potential instances of auditory injury and more severe behavioral disturbance to the maximum extent practicable by delaying the commencement of pile driving if marine mammals are detected within certain pre-defined distances from the pile being installed. The purpose of a shutdown is to prevent a specific, acute impact, such as auditory injury or more severe behavioral disturbance, by halting the activity. Additionally, to avoid unauthorized takes, PM would delay an activity or shut down in the event that a species for which take is not authorized or for which take has been reached is observed within or entering any designated harassment zone. If pile driving activities are delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the clearance and shutdown zones indicated in table 9 or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
If a marine mammal comes within 10 meters of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.
In general, the clearance and shutdown zones represent the calculated Level A harassment distance rounded up for ease of implementation (table 9). However, the proposed IHA includes shutdown zones that are smaller than the Level A harassment zones (table 7) for harbor porpoises (300-m shutdown zone) and harbor seals (25-m shutdown zone) due to detectability concerns (
Monitoring would take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving (pre-start clearance monitoring) through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving. In addition, monitoring for 30 minutes would take place whenever a break in the specified activity (
PM would use soft start procedures for impact pile driving to provide additional protection to marine mammals by issuing a warning and/or giving them a chance to leave the area before the hammer operates at full capacity. Soft start required contractors to provide an initial set of three strikes as reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent reduced-energy strike sets. This soft start would be implemented at the start of each day's impact pile driving and at any time following cessation of this activity for a period of 30 minutes or longer within a day.
PM has not proposed to use a bubble curtain during impact pile driving due to limited effectiveness of the bubble curtains due to the strong tides in the area and economic impracticability. In general, bubble curtains reduce noise levels near the source, minimizing exposure level. However, for this project, most of the piles are located within the intertidal zone, and thus a substantial number of piles will be installed above water or with the limits of the bubble curtain above the water surface preventing the bubble curtains from being effective. In addition, bubble curtains would be cost prohibitive and would prevent the project from going forward. For these reasons, PM has determined that the use of a bubble curtain is not practicable, and NMFS agrees.
NMFS conducted an independent evaluation of the proposed measures and has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
The monitoring and reporting requirements described in the following were proposed by PM in its adequate and complete application and/or are the result of subsequent coordination between NMFS and PM. PM has agreed to the requirements. NMFS describes
A minimum of two PSOs would be on duty during all pile-driving activities. All PSOs must be NMFS-approved. PSOs would be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor) and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. At least one PSO would have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during an activity pursuant to a NMFS issued Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) or Letter of Concurrence (LOC). Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience (including relevant Alaska Native traditional knowledge), education (degree in biological science or related field), or training for prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization. Where a team of three or more PSOs is required a lead observer or monitoring coordinator would be designated. The lead observer must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued ITA or LOC.
PSOs will be positioned at the best practicable vantage points, taking into consideration security, safety, access, and space limitations. Observer locations must be identified that (1) have an unobstructed view of the work being conducted and (2) unobstructed view of all the water within the Level A harassment zone and as much of the Level B harassment zone as possible. Potential observation locations are depicted in Figure 1 of PM's PSMMP. Optimal observation locations will be selected based on visibility and the type of work occurring.
PM would submit a draft report on all construction activities and marine mammal monitoring results to NMFS within 90 calendar days of the completion of monitoring, or 60 days prior to the requested issuance of any subsequent IHAs or similar activity at the same location, whichever comes first. PM will provide a final report to NMFS within 30 days following receipt of any NMFS' comments on the draft report. The information required to be collected and reported to NMFS is included in the draft IHA available at:
Specific proposed monitoring and reporting requirements can be found in the draft IHA found at
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all species listed in table 2 given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Impact and vibratory pile driving and removal have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals and may result in take in the form of Level B harassment for all species and stocks in table 2 and Level A harassment for harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and SSLs. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in Level B harassment identified above when these activities are underway. PM would implement mitigation measures designed to reduce the potential for and severity of harassment on the affected marine mammal species and stocks during the specified activities.
Given the nature of PM's proposed activities, NMFS does not anticipate serious injury or mortality, even in the absence of required mitigation. Take by Level A harassment is proposed for harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and SSLs to account for the potential that an animal could enter and remain in the Level A harassment zone unnoticed for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ because animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here in order to incur any more than a small degree of AUD INJ. Further, PTS would only occur within the frequency range of the source (
For all species and stocks, take is expected to occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the project site) of the species' range, including Southeast Alaska. The intensity and duration of take by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment would be minimized through the proposed mitigation measures described herein. Further, the number of take proposed
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile removal and installation at the JNU Rock Dump Fuel Terminal are expected to be mild, short-term, and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zones may not show any visual cues that they are disturbed by activities, or they may become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable, such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given that pile removal and installation activities would only occur on a limited number of days each year, often on non-consecutive days, any harassment would be temporary. Additionally, many of the species present in the Gastineau Channel would be present only for part of the year, based on seasonal patterns or during active transit between other habitats. These species would be exposed to even shorter periods of noise-generating activity, further decreasing the impacts.
Most likely, during the specified activities, individuals are expected to move away from the sound source until the source ceases. An avoidance response is most likely to occur if an animal is in close proximity to a source, most notably impact pile driving. At distance, the severity of any behavioral response is likely to be diminished from all of the specified activities. It is possible that avoidance or other behavioral responses do not occur, especially for non-impulsive sources such as vibratory pile removal and driving, given marine mammals in the Juneau area are consistently exposed to anthropogenic noise sources like vessel traffic. Regardless, NMFS assumes animals disturbed by project sounds would be expected to avoid the area and use nearby higher-quality habitats.
The potential for harassment is minimized through the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The use of shutdown and clearance zones reduce the likelihood of incurring AUD INJ. During impact driving, implementation of soft start procedures shall be required, reducing possibility for injury. Through the use of soft start during impact pile driving, marine mammals are expected to move away from a disturbing sound source prior to it becoming potentially injurious.
Any impacts on prey that would occur during in-water construction would have at most short-term effects on foraging of individual marine mammals, and likely no effect on the populations of marine mammals as a whole. Therefore, effects on marine mammal prey during the construction are expected to be minimal and, therefore, are unlikely to cause substantial effects on marine mammals at the individual or population level.
In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat would have any effect on the reproduction or survival of any individual, much less the stocks' annual rates of recruitment or survival. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrated that the potential effects of the specified activities would have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and would, therefore, not result in population-level impacts.
For humpback whales, the inland waters of Southeast Alaska are a seasonal feeding BIA from May through September (Wild
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Any Level A harassment is anticipated to be slight AUD INJ, including slight PTS of a few decibels within the lower frequencies associated with pile driving and not encompassing a species' full hearing range;
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would result in, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior or a small degree of TTS that would resume to baseline at the cessation of activities or as animals move away from the source;
• The project area is located in a highly industrialized and commercial area; therefore, species taken are likely acclimated to anthropogenic activities and behavioral reactions are expected to be minor;
• Take could occur within an exceedingly small area affected by the specified activity relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species, and it does not include any rookeries nor does it overlap any known BIAs or ESA-designated critical habitat;
• Effects on species that serve as prey for marine mammals from the activities are primarily expected to be short-term and, therefore, any associated impacts on marine mammal feeding are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individuals, or to accrue adverse impacts on their populations;
• The proposed mitigation measures, such as soft starts for impact pile driving and shutdown zones, are expected to reduce the effects of the specified activity on marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. As previously stated, no mortality or serious injury has been requested, nor is it anticipated to occur from the activities described herein.
The number of instances of take for each species or stock proposed for authorization are included in table 8. Our analysis shows that for all species with available population abundance estimates, less than one-third of the best available population abundance estimate of each stock could be taken by harassment incidental to the proposed construction.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity will not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources, including sea lions and harbor seals, in Southeast Alaska. Since surveys of harbor seal and sea lion subsistence harvest in Alaska began in 1992, there have been declines in the number of households hunting and harvesting pinnipeds in Southeast Alaska while the number of household hunting and harvesting sea lions has remained relatively constant at low levels (Wolfe
The ADF&G has designated the area around Juneau, including ensonified waters from the project, a non-subsistence area, defined as an area where dependence upon subsistence (customary and traditional uses of fish and wildlife) is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life (AS 16.05.258(c)). Regardless, the impact of the project on marine mammals is expected to be primarily limited to mild behavioral reactions (
Given all of this information, NMFS has preliminarily determined that authorizing the take requested by PM is not likely to adversely affect the availability of any marine mammal species/stocks that would traditionally be used for subsistence purposes or would affect any subsistence harvest.
• The proposed construction activities are spatially localized within an existing waterfront development wherein marine mammals have become acclimated to human activity;
• The proposed activities are temporary in nature;
PM would implement mitigation measures that minimize any harassment to marine mammals in the action area, including traditionally harvested species;
• NMFS expects that most of the effects on marine mammals would not rise above behavioral impacts (
• No serious injury or mortality is expected or proposed to be authorized.
For these reasons, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from authorizing the requested take that may occur incidental to PM's specified activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is proposing to authorize take of the western stock of Steller sea lions, which are listed under the ESA. OPR has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with AKRO for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to PM for conducting construction in Juneau, AK, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed construction. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
1. An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
2. A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate,
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 250 E Street SW, Suite 3100, Washington DC, 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
On July 30, 2026 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (operating as the U.S. AbilityOne Commission) published an initial notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.(91 FR 48089) The Committee determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government and has added this service to the Procurement List as a mandatory purchase for the contracting activity listed. In accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.3(b), the mandatory purchase requirement is limited to the contracting activity at the location listed, and in accordance with 41 CFR 51-5.2, the Committee has authorized the listed nonprofit agency as the authorized source of supply.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) added to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the Department of the Army, Supply Distribution Food, USPFO-PA, Fort Indiantown Gap, PA contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the Department of the Army will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on September 27, 2026, ensuring timely execution for a October 1, 2027 start date. The Committee published an initial notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete products from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: October 10, 2026.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 250 E Street SW, Suite 3100, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 489-1322, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of record of decision.
On August 4, 2026, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the T-7A Recapitalization at Sheppard AFB, TX, Environmental Impact Statement.
Ms. Chinling Chen, NEPA Project Manager, by email at
The DAF will implement its Alternative 3 to recapitalize all T-38C aircraft at Sheppard AFB with up to 131 T-7A aircraft, limiting initial delivery to 108 per the Secretary of the Air Force Strategic Basing Decision approving Sheppard AFB as the fifth T-7A Main Operating Base. DAF will execute all portions of T-7A recapitalization at Sheppard AFB including the operations and changes to the number of personnel and dependents as defined for Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is selected to provide DAF with flexibility for future capacity needs after considering the potential environmental consequences provided in the EIS for T-7A recapitalization at Sheppard AFB, the comments and concerns of the public and other key stakeholders, as well as other factors related to national defense, including current military operational needs and costs. The Final EIS was made available to the public through the project website (
The DAF decision documented in the ROD was based on matters discussed in the Final EIS, inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. Authority for this notice is 42 U.S.C. 4321,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of Intent.
The Department of the Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property that it intends to exchange land with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) property in furtherance of a federally funded research and development center operated by MIT at Hanscom AFB, MA.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit objections to Daniel J. Wetz, Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC/CITE), 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Lackland, TX 78236-9853; telephone (380) 459-8501.
Daniel J. Wetz, Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC/CITW), 2261 Hughes Avenue, Suite 155, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Lackland, TX 78236-9853; telephone (380) 459-8501.; Email:
The Air Force will agree to convey 1.04 acres in fee with a nominal value ($0) to The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a not for profit corporation created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Recipient, in exchange for 1.04 acres in fee, also with a nominal value ($0). The Government is entering into this Agreement pursuant to the authority contained in Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(2), Exchange of Property at Military Installations.
On 8 September 2026, the Department of the Air Force notified the appropriate Congressional committees of the terms and conditions of the proposed exchange pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(2).
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 9, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of War Education Activity (Executive Services Division), ATTN: Brianna Paul, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350 or call at (571) 545-3996.
The collected information will be used by State and local election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote or receive an absentee ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) is collected or retained by the Federal government. The FPCA is completed in hardcopy or via the Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) online assistant (
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 9, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of War Education Activity (Executive Services Division), ATTN: Brianna Paul, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350 or call at (571) 545-3996.
The collected information will be used by State and local election officials to process uniformed service members, spouses and overseas citizens who submit their information to register to vote or receive an absentee ballot. The collected information will be retained by election officials to provide election materials, including absentee ballots, to the uniformed services, their eligible family members and overseas voters during the form's eligibility period provided by State law. No information from the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) is collected or retained by the federal government. The FWAB is completed in hardcopy or via the Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP) online assistant (
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The Western Water Cooperative Committee, a Federal Advisory Committee, provides a forum for discussions between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and Western States regarding the operation of Corps projects and water rights and water laws of Western States. The Western Water Cooperative Committee will host two online virtual meetings, one on October 1, 2026, that will give the Corps presentations on water management and water supply authorities given at the December 2025 meeting, and one on October 6, 2026, that will be a discussion on the Committee by-laws. These meetings are open to the public.
The Western Water Cooperative Committee will conduct two online virtual meetings: (1) from 1:00 p.m. EDT to 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, October 1, 2026, and (2) from 2:00 p.m. EDT to 4:00 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, October 6, 2026.
The Western Water Cooperative Committee meetings will both be online virtual meetings. Information for the online virtual meetings can be accessed at the committee's website:
The DFO for the committee: Mr. Sean L. Smith, by telephone at 202-761-0301; and by email at
The committee meetings are being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Chapter 10, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
The meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2026, will present the slides from the Corps presentations given at the December 3, 2025, in-person meeting on the Corps water management and water supply authorities.
The meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, will resume discussion on the Committee by-laws from the February 5, 2026, meeting and finalize the proposed by-laws for the Committee.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans), Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans), and Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loan), Assistance Listing Number 84.268, with first disbursement dates before July 1, 2006, and for Federal Direct Consolidation Loans (Direct Consolidation Loans) for which the application was received before February 1, 1999. The rates announced in this notice are in effect for the period July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
Travis Sturlaugson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-377-4174 or by email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, Direct PLUS Loans, and Direct Consolidation Loans (collectively referred to as “Direct Loans”) may have either fixed or variable interest rates, depending on when the loan was first disbursed or, in the case of a Direct Consolidation Loan, when the application for the loan was received. Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed before July 1, 2006, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received before February 1, 1999, have variable interest rates. For these loans, a new rate is determined annually and is in effect during the period from July 1 of one year through June 30 of the following year.
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, have fixed interest rates that apply for the life of the loan.
This notice announces the interest rates for variable-rate Direct Loans that will apply during the period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. Interest rate information for fixed-rate Direct Loans is announced in a separate notice published in the
Interest rates for variable-rate Direct Loans are determined in accordance with formulas specified in section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)). The formulas vary depending on loan type and when the loan was first disbursed or, for certain Direct Consolidation Loans, when the application for the loan was received. The HEA specifies a maximum interest rate for these loan types. If the interest rate formula results in a rate that exceeds the statutory maximum rate, the rate is the statutory maximum rate.
For Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans with first disbursement dates before July 1, 2006, and for Direct PLUS Loans with first disbursement dates on or after July 1, 1998, and before July 1, 2006, the interest rate is equal to the lesser of—
(1) The bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before the June 1 immediately preceding the 12-month period to which the interest rate applies, plus a statutory add-on percentage; or
(2) 8.25 percent (for Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans) or 9.00 percent (for Direct PLUS Loans).
For Direct Subsidized Loans and Direct Unsubsidized Loans with first disbursement dates on or after July 1, 1995, and before July 1, 2006, the statutory add-on percentage varies depending on whether the loan is in an in-school, grace, or deferment status, or in any other status. For all other loans, the statutory add-on percentage is the same during any status.
The bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 26, 2026, is 3.678 percent, rounded to 3.68 percent.
For Direct PLUS Loans with first disbursement dates before July 1, 1998, the interest rate is equal to the lesser of—
(1) The weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before the June 26 preceding the 12-month period to which the interest rate applies, plus a statutory add-on percentage; or
(2) 9.00 percent.
The weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26, 2026, is 3.99 percent.
A Direct Consolidation Loan may have up to three components, depending on the types of loans that were repaid by the consolidation loan and when the application for the consolidation loan was received. The three components are called Direct Subsidized Consolidation Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans, and (only for Direct Consolidation Loans made based on applications received before July 1, 2006) Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans. In most cases the interest rates for variable-rate Direct Subsidized Consolidation Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Consolidation Loans, and Direct PLUS Consolidation Loans are determined in accordance with the same formulas that apply to Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans, respectively.
Charts 1 and 2 show the interest rate formulas used to determine the interest rates for all variable-rate Direct Loans and the rates that are in effect during the 12-month period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
Chart 1 shows the interest rates for loans with rates based on the 91-day Treasury bill rate. Chart 2 shows the interest rates for loans with rates based on the weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Subsidized Loans), Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/Ford Loans (Direct Unsubsidized Loans), and Federal Direct PLUS Loans (Direct PLUS Loans) made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.268, with first disbursement dates on or after July 1, 2026, and before July 1, 2027.
Travis Sturlaugson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-377-4174 or by email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, Direct PLUS Loans, and Direct Consolidation Loans (collectively referred to as “Direct Loans”) may have either fixed or variable interest rates, depending on when the loan was first disbursed or, in the case of a Direct Consolidation Loan, when the application for the loan was received. Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, have fixed interest rates that apply for the life of the loan. Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed before July 1, 2006, and Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received before February 1, 1999, have variable interest rates that are determined annually and are in effect during the period from July 1 of one year through June 30 of the following year.
This notice announces the fixed interest rates for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans with first disbursement dates on or after July 1, 2026, and before July 1, 2027, and provides interest rate information for other fixed-rate Direct Loans. Interest rate information for variable-rate Direct Loans is announced in a separate
Section 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)), includes formulas for determining the interest rates for all Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2013. The interest rate for these loans is a fixed rate that is determined annually for all loans first disbursed during any 12-month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. The rate is equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury notes auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of that 12-month period, plus a statutory add-on percentage that varies depending on the loan type and, for Direct Unsubsidized Loans, whether the loan was made to an undergraduate or graduate student. The calculated interest rate may not exceed a maximum rate specified in the HEA. If the interest rate formula results in a rate that exceeds the statutory maximum rate, the rate is the statutory maximum rate. Loans first disbursed during different 12-month periods that begin on July 1 and end on June 30 may have different interest rates, but the rate determined for any loan is a fixed interest rate for the life of the loan.
On May 12, 2026, the United States Treasury Department held a 10-year Treasury note auction that resulted in a high yield of 4.468 percent, rounded to 4.47 percent.
Chart 1 shows the fixed interest rates for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2026, and before July 1, 2027.
For reference, Chart 2 compares the fixed interest rates for Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed during the period July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, with the fixed interest rates for loans first disbursed during each previous 12-month period from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2027.
Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and Direct PLUS Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, and before July 1, 2013, have fixed interest rates that are specified in section 455(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)). Chart 3 shows the interest rates for these loans.
Section 455(b) of the HEA specifies that all Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, have a fixed interest rate that is equal to the weighted average of the interest rates on the loans consolidated, rounded to the nearest higher one-eighth of one percent. For Direct Consolidation Loans for which the application was received on or after February 1, 1999, and before July 1, 2013, the interest rate may not exceed 8.25 percent. However, under section 455(b) of the HEA, the 8.25 percent interest rate cap does not apply to Direct Consolidation Loans made based on applications received on or after July 1, 2013. Chart 4 shows the interest rates for fixed-rate Direct Consolidation Loans.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
Federal Student Aid announces the interest rates for loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.032, that have variable interest rates. The rates announced in this notice are in effect for the period July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
Travis Sturlaugson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 202-377-4174. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Section 427A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1077a), provides formulas for determining the interest rates charged to borrowers on loans made under the FFEL Program, including Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (Stafford Loans), Federal PLUS Loans (PLUS Loans), Federal Consolidation Loans (Consolidation Loans), and Federal Supplemental Loans for Students (SLS Loans). No new loans have been made under the FFEL Program since June 30, 2010.
The FFEL Program includes loans with variable interest rates that change each year and loans with fixed interest rates that remain the same for the life of the loan. For loans with a variable interest rate, the specific interest rate formula that applies to a particular loan depends on the date of the first disbursement of the loan or, in the case of a Consolidation Loan, the date the application for the loan was received. If a loan has a variable interest rate, a new rate is determined annually and is in effect during the period from July 1 of one year through June 30 of the following year.
This notice announces the interest rates for variable-rate FFEL Program loans that will be in effect during the period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. Interest rates for fixed-rate FFEL Program loans may be found in a
For the majority of variable-rate FFEL Program loans, the annual interest rate is equal to the lesser of—
(1) The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage; or
(2) A statutorily established maximum interest rate.
The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned on May 26, 2026, is 3.678 percent, rounded to 3.68 percent.
For PLUS Loans first disbursed before July 1, 1998, and for all SLS Loans, the annual interest rate is equal to the lesser of—
(1) The weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage; or
(2) A statutorily established maximum interest rate.
The weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the last calendar week ending on or before June 26, 2026, is 3.99 percent.
For Consolidation Loans that have a variable interest rate, the annual interest rate for the portion of a Consolidation Loan that repaid loans other than loans made under the Health Education Assistance Loans (HEAL) Program is equal to—
(1) The bond equivalent rate of the 91-day Treasury bill auctioned at the final auction held before June 1 of each year, plus a statutory add-on percentage; or
(2) A statutorily established maximum interest rate.
If a Consolidation Loan (whether a variable-rate loan or a fixed-rate loan) repaid loans made under the HEAL Program, the interest rate on the portion of the Consolidation Loan that repaid HEAL loans is a variable rate that is equal to the average of the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned for the quarter ending June 30, plus a statutory add-on percentage. For the portion of a Consolidation Loan that repaid HEAL loans, there is no maximum interest rate.
The average of the bond equivalent rates of the 91-day Treasury bills auctioned for the quarter ending on June 30, 2026, is 3.72 percent.
The statutory add-on percentages and maximum interest rates vary depending on loan type and when the loan was first disbursed. In addition, the add-on percentage for certain Stafford Loans is different depending on whether the loan is in an in-school, grace, or deferment status, or in any other status. If the interest rate calculated in accordance with the applicable formula exceeds the statutory maximum interest rate, the statutory maximum rate applies.
Charts 1 through 4 show the interest rate formulas that are used to determine the interest rates for all variable-rate FFEL Program loans and the interest rates that are in effect during the 12-month period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. Unless otherwise indicated, the cohorts shown in each chart include all borrowers, regardless of prior borrowing.
Chart 1 shows the interest rates for loans with rates based on the 91-day Treasury bill, with the exception of “converted” variable-rate Federal Stafford Loans and certain Federal Consolidation Loans.
Chart 2 shows the interest rates for loans with rates based on the weekly average of the one-year constant maturity Treasury yield.
Chart 3 shows the interest rates for “converted” variable-rate Federal Stafford Loans. These are loans that originally had varying fixed interest rates.
Finally, Chart 4 shows the interest rates for variable-rate Federal Consolidation Loans, and for the portion
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is developing an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year approval of its collection, titled BPA Generic Benchmarking Surveys, OMB Control Number 1910-NEW. The proposed collection will be a retrospective analysis of existing construction and design standards in power transmission through comparison
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 13, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 881-9493.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Attn: Stephanie Noell, Privacy Program, by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 24, 2026, by Candice D. Palen, Information Collection Clearance Manager, Bonneville Power Administration, 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 authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On April 6, 2026, Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) filed a motion in Docket No. CP03-75-000 requesting to partially terminate authorization granted under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Regasification Terminal Disconnect Project (Project), and would decommission, disconnect, and/or demolish obsolete facilities that are no longer necessary for the Terminal's present-day export operations.
On April 20, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Motion to Vacate Certificate for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Freeport LNG's Terminal has been operated exclusively for the purpose of liquefying natural for export and has not regasified imported LNG for over a decade, therefore Freeport LNG proposes to decommission, disconnect, and/or demolish obsolete facilities authorized by the Commission, which are no longer necessary for the Terminal's present-day export operations.
The Regasification Terminal Disconnect Project (Project) would involve the removal of the Regasification Facilities and modification/relocation of certain facilities required for continued operations at the terminal's liquefaction facility on Quintana Island in Brazoria County, Texas. Freeport LNG proposes to execute the Project in about 22 months including the design phase with removal and modification taking place over 12 months. This would involve physically disconnecting the regasification facilities from the liquefaction facility and modifying/relocating the facilities required for continued operations as well as demolition and removal of the regasification facilities, including associated underground piping, equipment foundations, and concrete paving.
On July 2, 2026, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
Take notice that the Commission received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214C, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Green Chile Project, proposed by Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (Transwestern) in the above-referenced docket.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Green Chile 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. Specifically, the BLM provided input on the conclusions and recommendations presented in the EA. Additionally, the BLM previously prepared an EA (DOI-BLM-NM-2026-0023-EA) with a Decision Record issued via U.S. Department of Interior Secretarial approval dated May 1, 2026.
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following facilities associated with the Green Chile Project:
• approximately 17.77 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline; and
• meter & regulator facilities and other appurtenances.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects.
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental effects. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-80-000) 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 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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Texas-Arkansas Power Project, proposed by Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural) in the above-referenced docket.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
FERC is the lead federal agency for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission facilities under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and the lead federal agency for preparation of the EA. The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Texas-Arkansas Power Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities all at Natural's existing Compressor Station 308 in Randolph County, Arkansas:
• abandon in place nine reciprocating compressor units, with a combined rating of 30,850 horsepower;
• install two new 20,482-horsepower Solar Turbines Titan 130 centrifugal units;
• modify plant yard piping and auxiliary equipment, including new
• construct a new, permanent access road and driveway.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Under section 7(c) of the NGA, the Commission determines whether interstate natural gas transportation facilities are in the public convenience and necessity and, if so, grants a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate them. Section 7(b) of the NGA specifies that no natural gas company shall abandon any portion of its facilities subject to the Commission's jurisdiction without the Commission first finding that the abandonment will not negatively affect the present or future public convenience and necessity. The Commission bases its decisions on both economic issues, including need, and environmental effects
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 (CP26-46-000) 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 (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a subsequent license to continue to operate and maintain the Lake Algonquin Hydroelectric Project No. 7274 (project). The project is located on the Sacandaga River in the town of Wells, Hamilton County, New York. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 5, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Samantha Pollak at (202) 502-6419, or
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
On August 31, 2007, Commission staff issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed relicensing of the project. On December 30, 2019, Idaho Power filed an Offer of Settlement and Stipulation and Implementation Agreement (2019 Settlement), resolving disputed issues related to spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead passage and reintroduction with the states of Oregon and Idaho in the context of their respective water quality certifications for the project under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (401 certifications). Pursuant to the 2019 Settlement, the states of Oregon and Idaho each issued 401 certifications for the project on May 24, 2019. On July 8, 2020, Idaho Power filed a supplement to its license application that included new and revised environmental measures proposed under the 2019 Settlement, refinements to the proposed action, and new information on project-affected resources. On October 14, 2020, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Idaho Power filed revised draft biological assessments for species managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which were subsequently revised again in July 1 and July 16, 2025, filings. On October 23, 2024, Idaho Power filed a settlement agreement on behalf of itself and the Forest Service (2024 Settlement), resolving between the parties the appropriate terms and conditions pursuant to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act to be incorporated into any new license issued for the project for the protection and utilization of federal lands administered by the Forest Service.
In accordance with Commission staff's June 13, 2022 notice of intent to prepare a draft and final SEIS, staff has prepared this final SEIS to supplement the final EIS with analyses of the new and revised proposed measures and mandatory conditions (
The final SEIS contains an analysis of Idaho Power's proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the project. The final SEIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
The final SEIS may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
For further information, contact Aaron Liberty, the Commission's relicensing coordinator for the project, at (202) 502-6862 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (EPA ICR No. 2569.07 and OMB Control No. 2070-0208). This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through May 31, 2027. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0616, online at
Marisa Lewis, Office of Mission Critical Operations (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-1562; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. 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.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 269 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This change, which is discussed in more detail in the ICR, reflects a decrease in the number of entities potentially affected by TSCA under section 4. EPA's burden estimates for this collection is based upon expected Section 4 activities, historical information on the number of chemicals per premanufacture notices (PMNs), SNUNs, microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and exemption notices and applications, including low-volume exemptions (LVEs), TMEs, low exposure/low release exemptions (LoREXs), TSCA experimental release applications (TERAs), certain new microorganism (Tier II) exemptions, and film article exemptions., and actions under TSCA section 6. These changes are adjustments.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h) identified by EPA ICR No. 2599.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0213. This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through April 31, 2027. In addition, this renewal consolidates the information collections covered under EPA ICR No. 2779.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0230 with EPA ICR No. 2599.04. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0105, online at
Marisa Lewis, Office of Mission Critical Operations (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-1562; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. 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.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 42,255 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This change, which is discussed in more detail in the ICR, reflects the consolidation of the ICR for the 2024 final rule for decaBDE and PIP (3:1) (EPA ICR No. 2779.02; OMB Control No. 2070-0230) with this ICR (EPA ICR No.2599.04; OMB Control No. 2070-0213). This therefore combines the 42,301 burden hours from the previously approved 2024 final rule ICR (EPA ICR No. 2779.02; OMB Control No. 2070-0230) with the 54 burden hours of the currently approved ICR (EPA ICR No.2599.04; OMB Control No. 2070-0213). The baseline burden estimate is from the currently approved ICR, with adjustments to the burden estimates, including changes in the number of respondents and the number of responses provided by those respondents, to capture changes and updates from the final rule related ICR (OMB Control No. 2070-0230). This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 9, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
The relevant rules for purposes of this revised information collection are §§ 25.110(e), 25.117(i), 25.118(a)(3), 25.118(b)(1), 25.118(b)(2), 25.118(b)(3), 25.118(e)(4), 25.118(h), and 25.137(h).
On May 1, 2026, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 26-26, SB Docket No. 25-157, titled “Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband.” In this Report and Order the Commission replaced the Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) framework with modern, performance-based geostationary orbit (GSO) protection criteria that take account of the improved spectrum sharing possibilities that modern satellite technology has brought, including through use of adaptive coding and modulation (ACM). As relevant to this information collection, a non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) FSS applicant must either certify that it has completed a coordination agreement with any operational co-frequency GSO satellite network, or submit for Commission approval a compatibility showing which demonstrates by use of a degraded throughput methodology that it will not cause unacceptable interference to any such system with which coordination has not been completed.
The relevant rules for purposes of this revised information collection are §§ 25.146(a)(3) and 25.289(a)(2).
The new information collection requirements in this collection remove previously required information collections that are no longer considered necessary. In addition, the new information is required to ensure that applicants are meeting the Commission's rules when they modify their systems without prior approval from the Commission. In addition, the information is required to ensure that the public and the Commission are provided with accurate information about the operations of a system.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 9, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
On November 18, 2011, the Commission released an order in which it comprehensively reformed and modernized the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to ensure that robust, affordable voice and broadband service, both fixed and mobile, are available to Americans throughout the nation.
On October 27, 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in which it, among other things, amended sections 1.21001 and 1.21002 of its existing part 1, subpart AA general universal service competitive bidding rules to codify policies and procedures applicable to the universal service auction application process that have been adopted in its recent universal service auctions, better align provisions in the universal service competitive bidding rules with like provisions in the Commission's spectrum auction rules, and make other updates for consistency, clarification, and other purposes that would apply in all universal service auctions.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 9, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before November 9, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than September 25, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of publication of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority 2027 proposed budget; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes the 2027 proposed budget of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed budget.
Comments must be filed on or before September 24, 2026.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Special
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
After the Authority submits its proposed budget and supporting materials to the Commission, and if the Secretary determines the submission comports with the requirements of the 16 CFR 1.150(c), the Secretary publishes the Authority's proposed budget in the
On August 3, 2026, the Authority forwarded to the Commission a Notice of Filing of HISA Budget, together with appendices furnishing detailed information pertinent to its 2027 budget proposal (as required by 16 CFR 1.150(c)). The Notice of Filing of HISA Budget is reproduced below. The appendices to which it refers have been collected and reproduced as a supporting document on the docket for this publication at
The Secretary concluded that the Authority's proposed 2027 budget submission complies with the requirements of 16 CFR 1.150(c) and therefore issues this document and invites comments from the public on the Authority's 2027 budget. Comments should address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) and whether any line items should be modified.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 24, 2026. Write “HISA 2027 Budget, Matter No. P222100” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit
The text that follows is the Notice of Filing of HISA Budget that the Authority submitted to the Commission. The appendices to which it refers have been collected and reproduced as a
Pursuant to the Act and the Commission's rule on Oversight of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority,
The Authority's Proposed Budget, along with a draft version of the Authority's Notice of Filing of HISA's 2027 Budget, were posted on the HISA website
The initial draft of the Proposed Budget was approved unanimously by the Authority's Board of Directors before it was posted on the HISA website for public comment. After the initial draft of the Proposed Budget was posted on the HISA website, the Authority identified the following changes: reduction of the salary and payroll tax expense line items in the Veterinary Services budget; reduction of the travel line item in the Administration budget; and an increase in the professional services line item in the Administration budget. The net effect of these changes is a $14,000 increase of the Proposed Budget (gross).
In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3052(f) and using the Methodology for Determining Assessments (Rule Series 8500) approved by the Commission, the Authority calculated the following:
• 2027 Assessments by State (attached as Appendix 1).
• 2027 Assessments by Track (attached as Appendix 2).
Appendix 1 displays the estimated gross amount required from each State Racing Commission as calculated under the Methodology for Determining Assessments. Appendix 2 displays the estimated gross amount required from each racetrack as calculated under the Methodology for Determining Assessments.
Similarly, it is possible that one or more racetracks operating in the State of Texas may conduct Covered Horseraces in 2027. Accordingly, the Authority requests approval to assess any racetrack conducting Covered Horseraces in Texas on a pro rata basis in accordance with the total budgeted amount approved by the Commission. Like the addition of West Virginia and Louisiana, this would result in a lower assessment for other States/racetracks conducting Covered Horseraces.
The Proposed Budget includes line items for the following other sources of revenue:
The Authority is committed to being a good steward of industry funds. Over the last few years, the Authority has reduced its gross budget by prioritizing efficiencies, identifying cost-saving measures, and leveraging economies of scale and diminishing start-up costs—all while maintaining a high level of
In accordance with Rule 1.150(c)(3), the Proposed Budget includes the following expenditures:
•
•
•
•
•
In accordance with Rule 1.150(c)(4), Section V of this Notice provides sufficient information regarding the Authority's expenditures included in the Proposed Budget, by line item, as would be required for members of the Authority's Board of Directors to exercise their fiduciary duty of care. The line-item expenditure information begins with the Racetrack Safety Program, followed by the ADMC Program (with separate line items shown for the budget for the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (“HIWU”)), and other programmatic expenses for Veterinary Services, Technology Operations, and Administration.
The Act directs the Authority to develop and implement a racetrack safety program applicable to all Covered Horses, Covered Persons, and Covered Horseraces (the “Racetrack Safety Program”). 15 U.S.C. 3056(a)(1). The Act specifies that the Racetrack Safety Program include, among other things, a set of training and racing safety standards and protocols, a racing surface quality maintenance system, programs for injury and fatality data analysis, the undertaking of investigations related to safety violations, procedures for charging and adjudicating violations, programs related to safety and performance research and education, an evaluation and accreditation program that ensures that racetracks in the United States meet the Racetrack Safety Program standards, and development of a nationwide database of racehorse safety, performance, health, and injury information.
Since July 1, 2022, the Authority has operated—on a 365-day basis—a Racetrack Safety Program that provides racetrack safety standards, racetrack accreditation, record reporting and data management, compliance and equine health monitoring, and more—all on a national scale. In 2025, the Authority's rules and safety protocols applied to approximately tens of thousands of Covered Horses; 39,000 Covered Persons; 41 Thoroughbred racetracks located across 19 States; 168,116 covered race starts; and 346,577 recorded workouts. Despite the broad scope of the Authority's functions, the Authority operates with a lean organizational structure consisting of only 27 full-time employees.
The Racetrack Safety Program portion of the Proposed Budget (Appendix 4) funds the implementation of the Racetrack Safety Program as set forth in the Rule Series 2000 and as originally approved by order of the Federal Trade Commission dated March 3, 2022. The Racetrack Safety Program expenditures include the following line items:
The Authority has included in the Proposed Budget a cost of living adjustment to base salary for all staff hired prior to June 1, 2026. In establishing compensation ranges, HISA considers relevant market benchmarks, the specialized nature of the positions, geographic considerations, and the need to compete with opportunities available in the private sector, regulatory organizations, and other professional fields.
These specialized services support the Authority's efforts to carry out the mandate given to it by Congress: “exercise independent and exclusive national authority over—(A) the safety, welfare, and integrity of covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces; and (B) all horseracing safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication control matters for covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces . . .” 15 U.S.C. 3054(a)(2). For example, as part of the Authority's mandate to provide for the safety and welfare of Covered Persons, the Authority contracted with the New Lexington Clinic through its employed physician Dr. Peter Hester, an Orthopedic Surgeon specializing in Sports Medicine, to serve as the first ever National Medical Director for the Thoroughbred racing industry. Dr. Hester, as the Authority's National Medical Director, leads initiatives to support jockey health and welfare, including mitigating risk of injury, securing elite medical care, improving and optimizing health care services, and developing and sourcing affordable medical insurance for the more than 1,700 Authority-registered Jockeys and their families. This line item was budgeted at $180,000 in 2026 and remains the same in the Proposed Budget.
Similarly, the Authority partnered with the digital concussion management platform HEADCHECK Health to enforce a uniform, national concussion protocol for Jockeys. Under the protocol, racetrack medical staff will use HEADCHECK to document medical evaluations, possible concussion symptoms and written releases permitting a Jockey to return to riding after being cleared by a qualified medical provider knowledgeable in concussion management and the skills needed to perform as a Jockey.
This line item also contemplates the Authority contracting with an epidemiologist to strengthen the Authority's efforts to protect the health and safety of Covered Horses by using data and scientific analysis to identify, understand, and prevent injuries and fatalities. Through the veterinary, training, injury, fatality, and other health and performance data available in the HISA Portal, an epidemiologist would expand the Authority's and, in turn, the industry's, ability to identify risk factors for equine injuries and death, detect trends and emerging safety concerns, evaluate the effectiveness of safety rules and protocols, and more. The Authority has budgeted $85,000 for this line item (this position was not included in the 2026 budget).
Additionally, this line item covers the ongoing costs associated with the Equine Associated Sudden Death (EASD) Study, a research initiative aimed at better understanding the underlying causes and risk factors associated with EASD. During the first six months of 2025, EASD accounted for approximately 8% of racing fatalities and 18% of training fatalities at racetracks subject to the Authority's rules. The findings from the EASD study have led to the issuance of an Equine Health Advisory (available at
Other expenses covered in this line item include contracting with a jockey wellness consultant and a partnership with OnRise, a third-party that provides a confidential platform that provides jockeys with access to mental health support through the insights and experiences of trained retired athletes, licensed therapists and psychiatrists. These expenses are associated with the health and safety of Covered Persons. The Authority has budgeted $106,000 for this line item (this expense was not included in the 2026 budget).
Finally, this line item includes expenses that the Authority advances on behalf of racetracks to support compliance with the Racetrack Safety Program, such as costs associated with stewards and veterinarians. Although the Authority initially bears these costs, racetracks reimburse the Authority for their share of these compliance-related expenses, which are subsequently recorded as “Other Revenues” in the Proposed Budget (
In sum, this line item contemplates a proposed increase compared to the 2026 Budget due in part to the addition of the EASD Study, epidemiologist, jockey wellness consultant, and OnRise.
This line item includes the costs of compensating teams of employees and independent contractors to perform site accreditation visits, and the costs of covering the travel and meal expenses for this team. In 2027, it is anticipated that the Authority will conduct 17 accreditation visits. The accreditation site visits are conducted by teams of three to four individuals. The costs included in this category are based on the actual cost of accreditation site visits in 2023, 2024, 2025, and the anticipated total costs for 2026.
This line item covers funding for services and activities related to the evaluation, monitoring, and testing of racetrack surfaces to support compliance with track surface standards established in the Racetrack Safety Program and required under the Act. The Authority contracts with the Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory (RSTL), an expert in testing and evaluating racetrack surfaces, to test, evaluate, and monitor track surfaces at the racetracks operating under the Racetrack Safety Program. These services help identify surface conditions that may affect the safety and welfare of Covered Horses and Covered Persons.
In addition to the Racetrack Safety Program, the Act directed the Authority to establish a “horseracing anti-doping and medication control program applicable to all covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces” (the “ADMC Program”). 15 U.S.C. 3055(a)(1). Nearly 75% of the Proposed Budget is dedicated to the ADMC Program. Pursuant to the Act, the Authority contracted with HIWU, a division of Drug Free Sport (“DFS”), to serve as the independent enforcement agency of the ADMC Program. HIWU oversees testing, educating stakeholders on the ADMC Program, accrediting laboratories, investigating potential violations, and prosecuting any such violations.
The ADMC Program portion of the Proposed Budget (Appendix 5) funds the implementation of the ADMC Program as set forth in the Rule Series 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000 and as originally approved by order of the Federal Trade Commission dated March 27, 2023. The ADMC portion of the Proposed Budget consists of three line items: Professional Services, HIWU, and Laboratory Testing.
Compared to the 2026 Budget, the proposed amount for this line item represents an approximate 42% reduction. The primary driver of this cost savings is a potential shift to a different service provider to administer the Arbitral Body. To reduce the costs to the industry, HISA and HIWU are exploring alternative independent service providers that will provide a high-level quality of service for a rate lower than the amount being charged by the current provider.
HEAL accredited laboratories have many years of experience in the testing of blood, urine, and hair samples taken from Thoroughbred racehorses. HISA and HIWU have conducted negotiations with each of these laboratories to ensure that competent testing is performed at the lowest price possible. The HEAL accreditation process and extensive contract negotiations has led to fewer laboratories being utilized for Sample analysis under the ADMC Program, allowing the approved laboratories to spread their fixed costs (salaried employees, testing equipment, etc.) over a larger number of samples, resulting in minimal price increases year-over-year.
In 2025, HIWU oversaw 111,287 sample collections (blood, urine, and hair) from 73,815 horses in 2025. Laboratory testing is a core component of the ADMC Program and the Act as it provides the scientific validation necessary to detect Prohibited Substances and verify compliance with the ADMC Program. The expenditure amount contemplated in this line item represents a reduction of approximately 8.3% compared to the 2026 budget. One reason for this anticipated reduction is a result of efficiencies learned from the first 3+ years of the ADMC Program.
As noted above, HIWU serves as the independent enforcement agency for the Authority's ADMC Program. HIWU is remarkably efficient given its size and available resources. With only 41 full-time employees (budgeting for 43 full-time employees) and seven additional shared employees (budgeting for 10 shared employees),
On the legal front, in 2025, HIWU served 377 Equine Anti-Doping/Equine Controlled Medication Notices and 361 Equine Anti-Doping/Equine Controlled Medication Charges in 2025.
The HIWU portion of the Proposed Budget (Appendix 6) totals $35,292,590, approximately a 5.2% decrease compared to 2026. Further details of the HIWU portion of the Proposed Budget are set forth below.
HIWU currently shares seven staff with DFS in the areas of Information Technology, Finance and Human Resources. This arrangement produces cost savings, obviating the need for HIWU to retain full-time employees to provide these services. This proposed line item contemplates three additional shared employees for 2027 (an additional human resource specialist, an instructional design specialist to assist with educational content management and creation, and a controller). Salary levels for each position are based on market rates, and the line-item amount contemplates cost of living adjustments for current employees plus the addition of at least one staff member in the legal department and one staff member in the investigations department.
The amounts for each expense component were based on estimated market average cost. This line item is based on historical data over the last three years and represents a 12% reduction compared to the 2026 budget.
(i) Results Management;
(ii) Investigative and State Racing Commission Relations; and
(iii) Laboratory Accreditation.
Specifically, this expense covers external legal counsel for assistance with complex case prosecution, contract investigators who provide seasonal “boots on the ground” investigative services at Covered Racetracks and Training Facilities, consultation with the independent Laboratory Expert Group members for laboratory accreditation expertise, the HIWU Advisory Council, and outside venders for services such as the management and distribution of laboratory quality control samples, educational video production, and communications support.
With more than three years' experience administering the Authority's ADMC Program, HIWU's reliance on external consultants is decreasing as reflected by the 18% decrease compared to the 2026 budget.
Technology. The Proposed Budget contemplates $1,696,642 for this line item. This line item covers funding for all software, hardware, licenses and continued technological development needed to administer the ADMC Program. As noted above, HIWU is responsible under the Act for conducting and overseeing the results management process. In 2025 alone, HIWU oversaw 111,287 sample collections (blood, urine, and hair) from 73,815 horses.
Given the scale and complexity of the ADMC Program, robust technology infrastructure is essential to ensure the efficient, accurate, secure, and timely management of testing and results data. Technology supports the end-to-end administration of the program, including sample collection and tracking, chain-of-custody documentation, laboratory data integration, results reporting, case management, regulatory compliance, and communication with laboratories, Veterinarians, racetracks, and other stakeholders. It also facilitates real-time monitoring and analysis of testing activities, reduces the risk of manual errors, enhances data integrity, and provides the transparency and auditability required for a national anti-doping and medication control program.
Continued investment in technology is necessary to maintain system reliability, accommodate growing testing volumes, address evolving regulatory requirements, strengthen cybersecurity protections, and implement enhancements that improve operational efficiency and stakeholder service. Without these systems and ongoing technological development, HIWU would be unable to effectively manage the substantial volume of testing data and associated regulatory activities required to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
Additionally, to cover travel expenses specifically related to sample collection, this includes airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, fuel costs, mileage for personal vehicles used for business purposes, parking, and meals. The amounts for each expense component were based on estimated market average costs.
The expenditure amount contemplated in this line item represents a reduction of approximately 6.5% compared to the 2026 budget. This anticipated reduction is a result of efficiencies learned from the first 3+ years of the ADMC Program.
The Authority incurs other programmatic expenditures that support its statutory mission beyond the direct administration of the Racetrack Safety Program and the ADMC Program. These expenditures include veterinary services, technology operations, and administrative services, all of which play a critical role in advancing HISA's statutory mandate to protect and enhance the safety and welfare of Covered Horses and Covered Persons and the integrity of Covered Horseraces.
The Authority's Veterinary Services department plays a crucial role in promoting the health, welfare, and safety of Covered Horses. The three Veterinarians that comprise this department have a combined 60 years of veterinary experience and are responsible for developing and overseeing the Authority's veterinary-related rules and protocols, supporting regulatory veterinarians and attending practitioners, managing veterinary reporting and compliance requirements, evaluating injury and health data, and helping implement data-based safety initiatives designed to reduce equine injuries and improve racing outcomes. Veterinary Services also collaborates with industry stakeholders, researchers, and HISA advisory committees to advance best practices in equine care, medication management, racetrack safety, and horse welfare, ensuring consistent standards are applied across all covered racing jurisdictions. Their work supports the health, safety, and welfare of the tens of thousands Covered Horses and 1,400 veterinarians participating in Thoroughbred racing across the United States.
The Veterinary Services expenditures (Appendix 7) include the following:
The Act requires the Authority to “exercise independent and exclusive national authority over—(A) the safety, welfare, and integrity of covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces; and (B) all horseracing safety, performance, and anti-doping and medication control matters for covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces.” 15 U.S.C. 3054(a)(2). These three Veterinarians are indispensable to fulfilling this statutory mandate. Through their ongoing oversight of veterinary policy, injury prevention initiatives, horse health monitoring, regulatory compliance, and stakeholder engagement, they help ensure the consistent implementation of the Act's safety and welfare objectives throughout the industry.
The Authority has included in the Proposed Budget a cost of living adjustment to base salary for all staff hired prior to June 1, 2026. In establishing compensation ranges, HISA considers relevant market benchmarks, the specialized nature of the positions, geographic considerations, and the need to compete with opportunities available in the private sector, regulatory organizations, and other professional fields.
The Authority's Technology department supports the building and development of all IT systems needed to properly and efficiently manage the Racetrack Safety Program, the ADMC Program, and administration of the Authority's operations. Among other things, the department is responsible for the development and maintenance of the HISA Portal, a proprietary platform utilized by over 39,000 Owners, Trainers, veterinarians, racetracks, stewards, and other industry participants for registration, reporting, compliance, and data management activities.
On average, the Authority receives approximately 7,000 veterinary treatment records per day and, as of the end of 2025, approximately seven million veterinary treatment records had been uploaded to the HISA Portal since the inception of the Racetrack Safety Program. Under HISA rules, horses' treatment records are available to regulatory veterinarians at any racetrack. Before the enactment of HISA's Racetrack Safety Program, information shared between tracks and States was limited to regulatory history (
The Technology Department expenditures (Appendix 8) include the following:
The Technology Department also assists with fulfilling specific responsibilities under the Act, including the development of a registration platform for all covered persons as “a condition of participating in covered races and in the care, ownership, treatment, and training of covered horses”; the “develop[ment] and maint[enance] [of] a nationwide database of racehorse safety, performance, health, and injury information”; and the development of a rulings page to comply with the Act's public disclosure requirements. 15 U.S.C. 3054(d)(1), 3056(c)(3)(A), 3057(c)(2).
The Authority has included in the Proposed Budget a cost of living adjustment to base salary for all staff hired prior to June 1, 2026. In establishing compensation ranges, HISA considers relevant market benchmarks, the specialized nature of the positions, geographic considerations, and the need to compete with opportunities available in the private sector, regulatory organizations, and other professional fields.
The Administration portion of the Proposed Budget consists of the general and administrative staff and expenditures that are needed to conduct HISA operations and carry out the Authority's responsibilities under the Act. This includes the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, along with employees in Legal, Communications, Operations/Compliance, Public Affairs, and Administrative Services.
The Administration Department expenditures (Appendix 9) include the following:
The Authority has included in the Proposed Budget a cost of living adjustment to base salary for all staff hired prior to June 1, 2026.
In establishing compensation ranges, HISA considers relevant market benchmarks, the specialized nature of the positions, geographic considerations, and the need to compete with opportunities available in the private sector, regulatory organizations, and other professional fields.
This line item also covers the lease costs associated with a small office for the Authority's Director of Public Affairs and one other employee strategically located in Washington, DC. The monthly base rent is approximately $1,300 per month, which is consistent with market rates.
Compared to the 2026 budget, this amount contemplates a reduction of approximately 18%, which is primarily due to the elimination of a small office in Pennsylvania.
1. Director and Officers Policy with Employment Practices Liability Coverage;
2. General Liability Insurance with Terrorism Coverage; and
3. Cyber Insurance Coverage.
Descriptions of these policies (in 2025) are included in the Authority's Annual Financial Report, available at
Attached as Appendix 10 is a comparison of the approved HISA 2026 Budget through June 30, 2026 to actual revenues and expenditures during that same period. A variance has been calculated for each line item, and a narrative explanation has been provided for all variances greater than 10% and at least $100,000.
The Authority received thirteen (13) public comments after posting the Proposed Budget on its website.
In light of the above framework, the Authority provides the following responses to each of the comments received after posting the Proposed Budget on its website.
1. Larry Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman's submission stated, “[a]bolish hisa.” This comment does not address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) or whether any line items should be modified.
2.
3. Jonathan Stettin. The Authority received a list of thirty-one (31) questions and comments from Jonathan Stettin who maintains the Past the Wire website. “Past the Wire is the Horse Racing column where Professional Handicapper Jonathan Stettin shares his knowledge, experience and passion for The Sport of Kings.”
In May 2022, the Authority entered into an agreement with Drug Free Sport International (“DFSI”), to “serve as the independent anti-doping and medication control enforcement organization” for the Authority's ADMC Program. 15 U.S.C. 3054(e)(1)(E)(i). DFSI is a worldwide leader in the sport drug testing industry and maintains enforcement partnerships with leading sports organizations, including the National Football League, NCAA, National Basketball Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association, PGA Tour, NASCAR and Major League Baseball. In 2022, DFSI established HIWU, led by a five-member Advisory Council, to serve as the ADMC enforcement agency for the Authority.
As the independent enforcement agency of the Authority's ADMC Program, HIWU is responsible for: (a) test distribution planning (including target or intelligence-based testing) and specific testing decisions; (b) laboratory accreditation and the monitoring, testing and auditing of accredited laboratories; (c) selecting the appropriate laboratory for sample analysis as permitted by the Act; (d) organizing analysis of samples and allocating special analysis to samples; (e) providing drug reference resources; (f) conducting education and anti-doping and medication control research; (g) statistical reporting to the Authority; (h) gathering of intelligence and conducting of investigations; (i) results management; (j) coordination with anti-doping organizations, international equine regulatory bodies, law enforcement, SRCs and the Authority; (k) administration of, and decision-making on, day-to-day operations; and (l) such other services as may be agreed by the Authority and HIWU in accordance with the Act.
The Authority evaluates the effectiveness of their spending on the ADMC Program and HIWU through a range of performance measures reported by HIWU and reviewed by HISA. As detailed in HIWU's Annual Reports, these measures include the number and scope of tests conducted, out-of-competition testing activity, laboratory turnaround times, the identification and adjudication of ADMC violations, investigations, educational outreach efforts, and oversight of laboratory accreditation. HIWU's annual reporting also provides data on sample collection, results management, case resolution, disciplinary actions, and trends in medication-control violations, allowing the Authority to assess both the operational efficiency and deterrent effect of the program. In 2025 alone, HIWU oversaw 73,815 total Sample Collection Sessions involving 25,515 unique Covered Horses tested under HISA's ADMC Program. As for adjudications, in 2025, HIWU served 377 EAD/ECM Notices and 361 EAD/ECM Charges. The average resolution time for cases originating in 2025 was 82.6 days. HIWU's investigations team conducted or oversaw 463 searches at 50 racetracks/training centers in 19 States.
In addition to enforcement metrics, the Authority considers broader program outcomes, including the establishment and oversight of the HISA Equine Analytical Laboratory Accreditation Program. The ADMC Program Rules require that HIWU administer the HEAL Accreditation Program, which includes empowering HIWU to closely monitor compliance and act accordingly when laboratories cannot meet the Laboratory Standards. The Laboratory Expert Group, whose members bring a broad range of relevant expertise in human and equine anti-doping, laboratory operations, and quality assurance management, is essential to this component of the ADMC Program.
Accordingly, while laboratory testing and adjudication represent a substantial portion of the ADMC Program budget, those functions constitute the core enforcement mechanisms required by Congress and are assessed by a variety of measures, including the metrics published by HIWU each year.
It should be also noted that the standardization and harmonization of an anti-doping and medication control
4. Bill Thomas. Mr. Thomas submitted the following comment: “I don't know much about budgets, but oversight is needed for horse racing to stay respectable in the public's eye. Too often they only see breakdowns and think it is all crooked. They don't see the care and compassion I see as an owner with a fabulous trainer . . . I believe things like HISA help with non race people's perspectives.” This comment does not address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) or whether any line items should be modified.
5. Rachel Sampson. Ms. Sampson's comment does not address the Proposed Budget, the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c), or whether any line items should be modified.
6. Tom McKenna. Mr. McKenna's submission expressed a view that “[q]uarter horses should be required to race under HISA especially when racing in a mixed meet such as New Mexico.” This comment does not address the Proposed Budget, the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c), or whether any line items should be modified.
7. Peter Berube. This commenter's submission largely focuses on the number of credits allocated by the Authority to the Florida racetracks, including a request for a per-track or per-State disclosure of estimated credits for 2027. That information is attached as Appendix 12 (Credits by State) and Appendix 13 (Credits by racetrack).
First, this commenter contends that the racetracks operating in Florida account for 12.48% of total Covered Starts in 2027 and, therefore, the Florida racetracks should receive 12.48% of the total credits allocated by the Authority. That, however, is not how credits are calculated. As set forth in Appendices 12 and 13, credits are grouped into the following categories: Post Race Sample Collection, TCO2 Sample Collection, Out of Competition Sample Collection and Laboratory Credit. Each credit is calculated based on the amount of reimbursements for expenses covered by the applicable racetrack or State that HIWU/HISA would otherwise have had to pay for. The only item in the Proposed Budget that is being paid for by the Florida racetracks is the cost of sample collection (Post Race, TCO2, and OOC) in Florida.
Additionally, this commenter states “. . . the split of Florida credits between Tampa (29.4%) and Gulfstream (70.6%) does not track their respective starts weights (34.1%/65.9%): Tampa receives disproportionately less than even the FL-internal starts share would suggest.” The credits associated with the cost of the Post-Race Sample Collection (that is being paid for by the Florida Gaming Commission) were allocated between Gulfstream Park and Tampa Bay Downs pro-rata based on starts. The credits associated with the costs of TCO2 Sample Collection and Out-of-Competition Sample Collection (that are paid for by the Florida racetracks) were allocated based on the amounts both tracks were expected to pay (those credits act as reimbursements of expected costs). On a proportional basis Gulfstream Park is expected to pay more than Tampa Bay Downs because Gulfstream: (1) is directed by HIWU to do Out-of-Competition Sample Collection at both their track and at their training center (Palm Meadows), and (2) is required to do Veterinarians'
8. New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association. The Authority received a comment from The New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (“NYTHA”). None of the questions/comments are relevant to the Commission's evaluation of the proposed budget.
9. Churchill Downs Incorporated. For the second straight year, this commenter submitted a comment advancing the misleading proposition that the Authority's per-start fee increased from $285 in 2023 to $450 in 2027. The obvious flaw in this argument was described in detail in HISA's response to CDI's comments on the 2026 Budget.
This submission also states that despite a 15% reduction in national starters, HISA's costs have declined by a lower amount, which the commenter claims is evidence that HISA has not achieved operational efficiencies. In actuality, the nationwide starts that were obtained from Equibase and used to calculate the 2027 Proposed Budget only declined by 8.56% from the starts that were used to calculate the 2026 Budget (of which nearly 60% was due to the removal of the Texas racetracks and Hawthorne from the 2027 Budget). Given that the inflation rate for the 12-month period ended May 31, 2026 was 4.2% and HISA added some new services to its 2027 Proposed Budget that are expected to benefit the industry and further the directives established in the Act, the 5.75% decrease in the 2027 Budget illustrates that HISA's 2027 Proposed Budget does in fact reflect operational efficiencies.
Finally, this commenter raises several questions about the accrual of interest on the outstanding loans and line of credit. HISA has not been informed whether interest will be forgiven or not, and as such the independent auditors that performed the audit of HISA's 2025 financial statements directed HISA to accrue interest. Should that interest ultimately be forgiven or if HISA collects more revenues than its amount of cash expenses then this excess will be returned to the industry as part of the annual True-Up process.
10. New York Thoroughbred Breeders, Inc. This commenter “encourages HISA to continue pursuing every reasonable opportunity to reduce operating costs, diversify revenue sources, improve efficiency, and accelerate its transition toward financial self-sufficiency.” While this comment does not address the decisional criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1.151(c) or whether any line items should be modified, the Authority states that it continues to be committed to pursuing reasonable opportunities to reduce costs and improving efficiencies while continuing to fulfill its mandate under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, as demonstrated through the Authority's 2027 budgeting process. The Proposed Budget marks the second consecutive year in which the Authority has proposed a reduction in its gross budget, and the proposed gross budget has decreased by approximately 9.50% since 2025. These reductions reflect ongoing efforts to identify efficiencies and manage expenditures in various areas of the budget, including laboratory testing, public relations, and third-party professional services. The Authority also continues to pursue and evaluate revenue-generating initiatives that could help reduce the overall cost of the Authority's operations for the industry.
This commenter also encourages “HISA to continue improving the efficiency of its compliance and enforcement programs.” The Authority continues to pursue measures designed to improve efficiency and costs of its enforcement programs while ensuring that enforcement is administered in a manner that is fair and consistent with the Act and the health and safety of Covered Horses and Covered Persons. For example, the Authority has proposed a rule modification that would introduce a voluntary mediation process in Anti-Doping and Medication Control cases, which is intended to facilitate the prompt and efficient resolution of appropriate ADMC matters and conserve resources for all parties. In addition, the Authority plans to hire an in-house enforcement attorney dedicated to Racetrack Safety matters to reduce reliance on outside counsel, generating cost savings that ultimately benefit the industry.
In sum, the Authority recognizes the importance of reducing the costs of its operations for the industry and, where appropriate, will continue to pursue opportunities to cut costs and increase revenue. At the same time, the Authority must ensure that any efforts to reduce costs remain consistent with its obligations under the Act to maintain robust safety and integrity programs for thoroughbred racing.
11. Virginia Racing Commission. This commenter expressed “support[ ] of the Proposed Budget, particularly where it reflects HISA's efforts to reduce the budget through operational efficiencies, cost-saving strategies, and economies of scale.” In so doing, the commenter advanced a few recommendations for the Authority to consider moving forward, including reporting of performance metrics and increased sharing of programmatic outcomes. The Authority and HIWU both publish quarterly and annual metric reports containing a wealth of information regarding equine fatalities, laboratory testing, enforcement metrics, and more. These reports continue to evolve, and more information is being made available each year. As for programmatic outcomes, the commenter specifically references racetrack surface quality testing results. This information is made available to the individual racetrack and the Authority encourages the commenter to coordinate with the applicable racetrack for access to this information.
This commenter does raise a question about a few of the line items in the Proposed Budget. Regarding the fine collection, since inception through July 15, 2026, HISA has issued $5,093,138 in fines and $2,097,850 has been collected to date. For unpaid fines, the Authority considers the practicality of collection by comparing the resources needed to pursue recovery via an enforcement action with the likelihood and expected value of collection. Additionally, per HISA rule 8200(e), any Covered Person that fails to pay a fine is subject to an automatic suspension. As for the Authority's Interest Expense line item, the Authority states that it has not been
12. Terry J. Westemeir. This commenter raises various criticisms in their comment, many of which are outside the scope of the Commission's decisional criteria and do not address specific line items in the Proposed Budget.
13. The National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association. The Authority received a comment from the Chief Executive Officer of the National HBPA (the “HBPA”). The letter “must be read against the backdrop of the HBPA's unrelenting mission (1) to prevent the passage of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act by repeatedly testifying against the proposed legislation during congressional hearings and (2) to dismantle HISA via various lawsuits—a campaign that has spanned five years and three Federal appellate courts and has resulted in millions of dollars of expenditures that the industry has had to shoulder.”
Much of the criticisms leveled at the Authority by the HBPA ignore the many publicly available reports that are available on HIWU and HISA's website. For example, the HIWU annual and quarterly reports provide detailed information concerning the number of Sample Collection Sessions. These details allow any observer to place whatever expense inputs they wish from the budget to arrive at a cost per Sample Collection Session. In addition, among other things, the detailed HIWU reports set forth the (i) total number of Adverse Analytical Findings nationally by State; (ii) the number and type of test by State and racetrack; (iii) Adverse Analytical Findings by substance; (iv) the number of investigative searches at racetracks and training centers. The HBPA has also ignored the information and data that the Authority makes regularly publicly available in its Metrics Reports.
The Proposed Budget is consistent with and serves the goals of the Act in a prudent and cost-effective manner. The Proposed Budget allocates the funding necessary for the successful implementation by HISA of the requirements of the Act. The Proposed Budget has been carefully analyzed and is narrowly tailored to the various regulatory activities of HISA as contemplated by the Act. As demonstrated herein, the anticipated revenues are sufficient to meet its anticipated expenditures.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of GSA Per Diem Bulletin FTR 27-01, Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Continental United States (CONUS) per diem reimbursement rates.
GSA has released the FY 2027 per diem rates to provide for reimbursement of Federal employees' subsistence expenses while on official travel within CONUS.
For clarification of content, contact Mr. Henry Sean Lambert, Director Travel and Transportation Management Division, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 771-233-2475 or by email at
The CONUS per diem reimbursement rates prescribed in Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Bulletin 27-01 may be found at
After a rate freeze in FY 2026, for FY 2027 GSA will increase the standard lodging per diem rate by $3 to $113, and 295 non-standard areas will continue to receive a maximum lodging allowance higher than the standard rate. The M&IE reimbursement rate tiers for FY 2027 will remain at $68-$92, and the standard M&IE rate will remain at $68.
Other than the changes posted on the GSA website, notices published periodically in the
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice of issuance of single-source award.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) announces the intent to award a single-source supplement to the current cooperative agreement held by the Northeast Iowa Area Agency on Aging (NEI3A) for the SMP Resource Center. The administrative supplement for FY 2026 will be in the amount of $226,000, bringing the total award for FY 2026 to $1,226,000. The supplement will allow the grantee to expand activities that began in FY 2025, which includes testing new communications strategies, expanding the functionality of their SMP smart phone app, exploring partnerships with technology companies, and other activities all aimed at expanding the reach of SMP messaging.
For further information or comments regarding this program supplement, contact Rebecca Kinney, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, telephone (202) 795-7375; email
The Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP) program empowers and assists Medicare beneficiaries to prevent health care fraud, errors, and abuse. The SMP Resource Center supports the national network of SMPs across all 50 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as a central source of information, expertise, and technical assistance, ensuring a consolidated, national approach to outreach and education. The supplement will allow the grantee to expand FY 2025 activities, including testing new communications strategies, enhancing the SMP smartphone app, and exploring partnerships with technology companies to broaden the reach of SMP messaging.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the fee rate for using a priority review voucher for fiscal year (FY) 2027. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended, authorizes FDA to determine and collect priority review user fees for certain applications for review of human drug or biological products when those applications use a tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) priority review voucher. These vouchers are awarded to the sponsors of tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat MCM product applications, respectively, that meet the requirements of the FD&C Act, upon FDA approval of such applications. The amount of the fee for using a priority review voucher is determined each fiscal year, based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA to review a human drug application designated as priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred in the review of an application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year. This notice establishes the FY 2027 priority review fee rate applicable to submission of eligible applications for review of human drug or biological products using a tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, or material threat MCM priority review voucher and outlines the payment procedures for such fees.
This rate is effective on October 1, 2026, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2027.
Olufunmilayo Ariyo, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 301-796-7900; or
Section 1102 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) added section 524 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n). In section 524 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of tropical diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 524 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application for a tropical disease (as defined in section 524(a)(3) of the FD&C Act) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the tropical disease product application (as defined in section 524(a)(4) of the FD&C Act).
Section 908 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) added section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff). In section 529 of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of new human drugs and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible human drug application for a rare pediatric disease (as defined in section 529(a)(3) of the FD&C Act) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the rare pediatric disease product application (as defined in section 529(a)(4) of the FD&C Act).
Section 3086 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) added section 565A to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-4a). In section 565A of the FD&C Act, Congress encouraged development of material threat MCMs by offering additional incentives for obtaining FDA approval of such products. Under section 565A of the FD&C Act, the sponsor of an eligible material threat MCM application (as defined in section 565A(a)(4) of the FD&C Act) shall receive a priority review voucher upon approval of the material threat MCM application.
A priority review involves a more intensive level of effort and a higher level of resources than a standard review.
The recipient of a priority review voucher may either use the voucher for a future human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)(1)) or section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), or transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another party. The voucher may be transferred repeatedly until it ultimately is used for a human drug application submitted to FDA under section 505(b)(1) of the FD&C Act or section 351(a) of the PHS Act. As further described below, a priority review is a review conducted with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goal date of 6 months after the receipt or filing date, depending on the type of application. Information regarding review goals for FY 2027 is available at:
The sponsor that uses a priority review voucher is entitled to a priority review of its eligible human drug application, but must pay FDA a priority review user fee in addition to any other fee required by PDUFA. FDA published information on its website about how the priority review voucher program operates.
This notice establishes the FY 2027 priority review fee rate for use of tropical disease, rare pediatric disease, and material threat MCM priority review vouchers at $1,798,596 and outlines FDA's process for implementing the collection of priority review user fees. This rate is effective on October 1, 2026, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2027.
FDA interprets section 524(c)(2) (tropical disease priority review user fee), section 529(c)(2) (rare pediatric disease priority review user fee), and section 565A(c)(2) (material threat MCM priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act as requiring that FDA determine the amount of each priority review user fee for each fiscal year based on the difference between the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year, and the average cost incurred by FDA in the review of a human drug application that is not subject to priority review in the previous fiscal year.
FDA is setting a fee for FY 2027, which is to be based on standard cost data from the previous fiscal year, FY 2026. However, the FY 2026 submission cohort has not been closed out yet, thus the cost data for FY 2026 are not complete. The latest year for which FDA has complete cost data is FY 2025. The Agency expects all applications that received priority review would contain clinical data. The application categories with clinical data for which FDA tracks the cost of review are (1) NDAs for an NME with clinical data and (2) BLAs.
The total cost for FDA to review NME NDAs with clinical data and BLAs in FY 2025 was $259,267,306. There was a total of 73 applications in these 2 categories (44 NME NDAs with clinical data and 29 BLAs). (Note: These numbers exclude the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief NDAs; no investigational new drug review costs are included in this amount.) Of these applications, 42 (24 NDAs and 18 BLAs) received priority reviews and the remaining 31 (20 NDAs and 11 BLAs) received standard reviews. Because a priority review compresses a review that ordinarily takes 10 months into 6 months, FDA estimates that a multiplier of 1.67 (10 months divided by 6 months) should be applied to nonpriority review costs in estimating the effort and cost of a priority review as compared to a standard review. This multiplier is consistent with published research on this subject, which supports a priority review multiplier in the range of 1.48 to 2.35 (Ref. 1). Using FY 2025 figures, the costs of a priority and standard review are estimated using the following formula:
For the FY 2027 fee, FDA will need to adjust the FY 2025 incremental cost by the average amount by which FDA's average costs increased in the 3 years prior to FY 2026, to adjust the FY 2025 amount for cost increases in FY 2026. That adjustment, published in the
The fee rate for FY 2027 is set in Table 1:
Sections 524(c)(4)(B), 529(c)(4)(B), and 565A(c)(4)(B) of the FD&C Act specify that the human drug application for which the sponsor requests the use of a priority review voucher will be considered incomplete if the priority review user fee and all other applicable user fees are not paid in accordance with FDA payment procedures. In addition, FDA may not grant a waiver, exemption, reduction, or refund of any fees due and payable under these sections of the FD&C Act (see sections 524(c)(4)(C), 529(c)(4)(C), and 565A(c)(4)(C)). FDA may not collect priority review voucher fees for any fiscal year “except to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts.” (Section 524(c)(5)(B), 529(c)(5)(B), and 565A(c)(6) of the FD&C Act.)
The priority review fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for any application received on or after October 1, 2026, submitted with a priority review voucher. As noted in section II, this fee must be paid in addition to any PDUFA fee that is required for the application. The sponsor would need to follow normal requirements for timely payment of any PDUFA fee for the human drug application. For more information regarding payment of PDUFA application fees generally, please see section 736(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
All three priority review vouchers have a notification requirement. To comply with this requirement, the sponsor must notify FDA not later than 90 days prior to submission of the human drug application that is the subject of a priority review voucher of an intent to submit the human drug application, including the estimated submission date. See sections 524(b)(4), 529(b)(4)(B)(i), and 565A(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act.
Under sections 524(c)(4)(A) (tropical disease priority review user fee), 529(c)(4)(A) (rare pediatric disease priority review user fee), and 565A(c)(4)(A) (material threat MCM priority review user fee) of the FD&C Act, the priority review user fee is due (
Payments made to FDA must be made in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank by electronic check, credit card, or wire transfer. The preferred method for payments to FDA is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to utilize
Secure electronic payments to FDA can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
For payments made by wire transfer, include the invoice number to ensure that the payment is applied to the correct fee(s). Without the invoice number, the payment may not be applied. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Include applicable wire transfer fees with payment to ensure fees are fully paid. Questions about wire transfer fees should be addressed to the financial institution. The following account information should be used to send payments by wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account No: 75060099, Routing No: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33.
FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965. If a fee is not paid in full, the fee will be treated as a claim of the U.S. Government (see 45 CFR part 30), meaning the invoice balance due amount is referred to collections.
The following reference is on display with the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is not available electronically at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of supplemental funding.
HRSA is providing additional fiscal year 2026 funding under the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility (Flex) Program using the program's established funding methodology, including a baseline increase for all recipients and an additional adjustment for states with newly designated Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs). This funding will support state efforts to strengthen CAHs, improve quality and performance, and sustain access to essential rural health care services.
Sheena Johnson, Deputy Division Director, Hospital State Division, Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, HRSA, at
E3.
42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(g)(1)-(2) (
As a result of this increase, the two recipients listed in Table 1 will receive additional funding due to the number of newly designated CAHs in their states. The additional funds will provide additional support to strengthen CAHs, improve quality and performance, support financial and operational improvement activities, and sustain access to essential health care services in rural communities.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice; announcement of public forum.
The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) will host a public online roundtable to share the latest updates on how NCATS is advancing translational science research and provide an opportunity for an interactive discussion with NCATS director Dr. Joni Rutter.
The public online forum will be available on October 9, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.
The public forum will be held online, at
Christopher Maurer, Management Analyst, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH,
The roundtable will also invite public discussion of proposed organizational changes at NCATS, including abolishing the Office of Drug Development Partnership Programs and the Office of Translational Medicine, revising the functional statement of the Office of Special Initiatives, and renaming the Chemical Genomics Branch as the Translational Models Branch. These changes are intended to consolidate program components within the NCATS Office of the Director and align one of the Center's intramural research branches with efforts to create non-animal models of disease. During the online forum, members of the public will be able to review the proposed changes and submit comments.
The NIH Reform Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C.281 (d)(4)) requires public notice of proposed reorganization plans. This announcement and the public forum serve as that notice.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 9, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2632, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, National Flood Insurance Program, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before December 9, 2026.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2627, to David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of November 13, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice.
Pursuant to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, the Administrator of FEMA is publishing this notice describing the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grant programs application processes, deadlines and award selection criteria. This notice explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the national fire service leadership during the annual meeting of the Criteria Development Panel (CDP), which was held September 9, 2025. The application period for the FY 2025 AFG Program was May 19, 2026, to June 22, 2026, and the FY 2025 FP&S Program was May 19, 2026, to June 22, 2026. The application periods were announced on the FEMA Fire Grant website at
Grant applications for the FY 2025 AFG and FP&S Programs were accepted electronically through the FEMA Grants Outcomes (FEMA GO) system at
DHS/FEMA/Resilience/Grant Programs Directorate, Fire Grants Branch, 400 C St. SW, 3N, FEMA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20472-3635.
Paul Parsons, Branch Chief, Fire Grants Branch, 866-274-0960 or
The AFG program awards grants directly to fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical service (EMS) organizations, and state fire training academies (SFTA) to enhance the health and safety of first responders and improve their abilities to protect the public from fire and fire-related hazards.
The FP&S program awards grants directly to eligible fire departments and national, regional, State, local, Territorial and Tribal governments and nonprofit organizations such as academic (
Applications for the FY 2025 AFG and FP&S Programs were submitted and processed online at
Funding for the FP&S program is through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program. For the FY 2025 AFG program, Congress appropriated $324 million through the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, Public Law 119-4, 1101. From this amount, $291.6 million will be made available for FY 2025 AFG awards, and $32.4 million will be made available for FY 2025 FP&S awards, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2229, which states that not less than 10% of available grant funds each year must be awarded under the FP&S program. Funds appropriated for FY 2025 will be available for obligation and award until September 30, 2026. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 further directs FEMA to administer AFG's appropriations according to the following requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Since 2001, AFG has awarded approximately $9 billion in grant funding to help firefighters and other first responders obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and fire-related hazards. FEMA awards grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the AFG program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applications that best address AFG priorities, as identified in the Application Evaluation Criteria section below, are reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel. The AFG program has three program activities:
• Operations and Safety;
• Vehicle Acquisition; and
• Regional Projects.
The priorities for each activity are fully outlined in the funding notice.
Since FY 2002, the FP&S program has provided nearly $750 million in grant funding to provide critically needed resources to fire departments and nonprofit organizations to carry out fire prevention education and training, fire code enforcement, origin and cause investigation, firefighter safety and health programming, prevention efforts,
1.
• Community Risk Reduction;
• Wildfire Risk Reduction;
• Code Enforcement/Awareness;
• Origin and Cause Investigation; and
• National/State/Regional Programs and Projects.
2.
• Clinical Studies;
• Technology and Product Development;
• Preliminary Studies; and
• Early Career Investigator.
The priorities of each activity are fully outlined in the FP&S program NOFO.
Before making a grant award, FEMA is required by 31 U.S.C. 3354, as amended by the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, Public Law 116-117 (2020), 41 U.S.C. 2313, and 2 CFR 200.206 to review information available through any Office of Management and Budget-designated repositories of government-wide eligibility qualification or financial integrity information. Therefore, application evaluation criteria will include the following risk-based considerations of the applicant: (1) financial stability; (2) quality of management systems and ability to meet management standards; (3) history of performance in managing Federal awards; (4) reports and findings from audits and monitoring; and (5) ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements.
FEMA will rank all complete and submitted applications based on how well they align with program priorities for the type of activity requested. Answers to activity-specific questions provide information used to determine each application's ranking relative to the stated program priorities.
Funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG and FP&S applications are established by FEMA based on the recommendations from the Criteria Development Panel (CDP). The CDP is composed of fire service professionals who make recommendations to FEMA regarding creating new, or modifying previously established, funding priorities, as well as developing criteria for awarding grants. The content of the AFG and FP&S program NOFOs reflect implementation of the CDP's recommendations with respect to the priorities and evaluation criteria for awards.
The nine major fire service organizations represented on the CDP:
AFG and FP&S applications are scored competitively by members of a Peer Review Panel. Applications with the highest score rankings per activity will also be evaluated through a series of internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, costs/quantities, and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed project(s). Below is the process by which applications will be reviewed:
AFG applications are reviewed through a multi-phase process. All applications are electronically pre-scored and ranked based on how well they align with the funding priorities outlined in the funding notice. Applications with the highest pre-score rankings are then scored competitively by no less than three members of a Peer Review Panel. Applications are also evaluated through a series of internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed project(s). Below is the process by which applications are reviewed:
The application undergoes an electronic pre-scoring process based on established program priorities listed in the funding notice and answers to activity-specific questions within the online application. Application narratives are not reviewed during pre-scoring. Request details and budget information should comply with program guidance and statutory funding limitations. The pre-score is 50% of the total application score.
Applications with the highest pre-score undergo peer review. The peer review is composed of fire service representatives recommended by the organizations represented on the CDP. The panelists assess the merits of each application based on the narrative section of the application, including the evaluation elements listed in the Narrative Evaluation Criteria below. Panelists independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application with their peers, and document the findings. A consensus is not required. The panel score is 50% of the total application score.
The highest ranked applications will be considered within the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range will undergo both a Technical Review by a subject-matter expert as well as a FEMA Program Office review before being recommended for award. The FEMA Program Office will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending any application for award. Once the Technical Evaluation Process is complete, each application's cumulative score will be determined, and a final ranking of applications will be created. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking and the ability to meet statutorily required funding limitations outlined in the funding notice.
The financial need narrative is where applicants highlight their department's financial situation. Applicants should include details describing their financial
The project description is where applicants describe their proposed projects. Applicants should explain the problem they are trying to solve and their plan to use AFG funds to solve it. Good narratives include risk analyses, timelines and milestones, plans for anticipated challenges and how they will execute their plan within the two-year period of performance.
The cost-benefit narrative is where applicants describe how their proposed projects will benefit their communities. Benefits should be detailed and include numbers and dollar amounts whenever reasonable. Applicants should describe how they intend to reduce costs. Good narratives include formulas that relate benefits to costs, costs per resident served, costs per call, or similar expressions.
The statement of effect is the narrative where applicants describe how their proposed projects will improve their daily operations. Good narratives will detail the benefits to their service members, their response times, cost reductions, and other internal improvements.
Fire departments operating in any of the 50 States, as well as fire departments in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any federally recognized tribal organization. A fire department is an agency or organization having a formally recognized arrangement with a State, Territory, local (city, county, parish, fire district, township, town or other governing body), or tribal authority to provide fire suppression to a population within a geographically fixed primary first due response area.
Nonaffiliated EMS organizations operating in any of the 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any federally recognized Indian Tribe or tribal organization. A nonaffiliated EMS organization is an agency or organization that is a public or private nonprofit emergency medical services entity providing medical transport that is not affiliated with a hospital and does not serve a geographic area in which emergency medical services are adequately provided by a fire department. FEMA considers the following as hospitals under the AFG program:
• Clinics;
• Medical centers;
• Medical colleges or universities;
• Infirmaries;
• Surgery centers; and
• Any other institutions, associations, or foundations providing medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and/or treatment for the sick or injured.
SFTAs operating in any of the 50 States, as well as the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Applicants must be designated either by legislation or by a governor's declaration as the sole fire service training agency within a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia and recognized by the National Fire Academy. The designated SFTA shall be the only agency/bureau/division, or entity within that State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to be an eligible SFTA applicant under the AFG program.
These entities are eligible only if they have a formally recognized arrangement with the local jurisdiction to provide fire suppression or emergency medical services on a first-due basis outside the confines of the airport or port facilities. Airport or port authority fire and EMS organizations whose sole responsibility is suppression of fires or EMS response on the airport grounds or port facilities are not eligible for funding under the AFG program.
FEMA considers two or more separate fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations with different funding streams, personnel rosters, and Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) but sharing the same facilities, as being separate organizations for the purposes of AFG eligibility. If two or more organizations share facilities and each submits an application in the same program area (
• Nonaffiliated EMS organization requests for any activity that is specific or unique to structural/proximity/wildlands firefighting gear.
• Fire departments that are a Federal Government entity, or contracted by the Federal Government, and are solely responsible under a formally recognized agreement for suppression of fires on Federal installations or land.
• Fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are not independent entities but are part of, controlled by, or under the day-to-day operational command and control of a larger department, agency or Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
○ However, if a fire department is considered to be the same legal entity as a municipality or other governmental organization, and otherwise meets the eligibility criteria, that municipality or other governmental organization may apply on behalf of that fire department as long as the application clearly states that the fire department is considered part of the same legal entity.
• Fire-based EMS organization applying as a nonaffiliated EMS organization.
• Auxiliaries, hospitals or fire service associations or interest organizations that are not the AHJ over the applicant.
• Dive teams, search and rescue squads, or similar organizations that do not provide medical transport.
• Fire departments, regional or nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are for profit.
• State or local agencies, or subsets of any governmental entity, or any authority that do not meet the requirements as defined by15 U.S.C. 2229(a), (c).
• If an applicant submits two or more applications for the same equipment or other eligible activity (for example, if an applicant submits two or more applications, one under the Regional activity, and one under the Operations and Safety activity for self-contained breathing apparatus [SCBA]), both applications may be disqualified. If an applicant submits two separate applications for the same activity (
○ This is different from when an entity is applying on behalf of other organizations that are agencies or instrumentalities of the applicant (
○
All eligible project applications will first be reviewed and scored by a panel of fire service experts to assess the need for the research results and the likelihood that the results would be implemented by the fire service in the United States. The projects that are determined most likely to be implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or well-being will be deemed to be in the “competitive range” and will be forwarded to the second level of project review, which is the scientific panel review process. A consensus is not required.
This panel will be composed of scientists and technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal. Scientific reviewers will independently score projects in the competitive range based on the fire service panel evaluation and, if necessary, discuss the merits or shortcomings of the project to reconcile any major discrepancies identified by fellow reviewers. A consensus is not required.
The highest scoring project(s) for both activities will be considered within the fundable range. Projects that are in the fundable range will undergo a technical review by the FEMA FP&S Program Office to assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending any application for award. Additionally, FEMA will review whether the project duplicates other federally funded research or prevention activities in order to avoid duplication. Once the technical evaluation process is complete, each project's final score is determined, and a final ranking of projects will be created. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking and the ability to meet statutorily required funding limitations listed in this notice and FP&S program NOFO.
Applicants must describe, in detail, their unique financial need in the Applicant Information section of the application and detail how consistent it is with their need for financial assistance to carry out the proposed project(s). Applicants may include other unsuccessful attempts to acquire financial assistance. Applicants should provide details about their total operating budget, including a high-level breakdown of the budget, the applicant's inability to address financial needs without Federal assistance, and other actions the applicant has taken to meet their needs (
Although interest organizations do not receive points for their financial need, this information is necessary to holistically evaluate and understand the applicant's financial need in comparison to similarly situated applicants.
Fire department applicants that can demonstrate their commitment and proactive posture to reducing fire risk will receive higher consideration. Applicants must explain their code adoption and enforcement (to include Wildland Urban Interface [WUI] and commercial/residential sprinkler code adoption and enforcement) and mitigation strategies (including whether the jurisdiction has a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation strategy). Applicants can also demonstrate their commitment to reducing fire risk by applying to implement fire mitigation strategies (code adoption and enforcement) via this application.
The assessment of fire risk is essential in the development of an effective project goal, as well as meeting FEMA's goal to reduce risk by conducting a risk assessment as a basis for action. Vulnerability is a “weak link,” demonstrating high-risk behavior, living conditions, or any type of high-risk situation. The Vulnerability Statement should include a detailed description of the steps taken to determine the vulnerability and identify the target audience. The methodology for determination of vulnerability (
The specific vulnerability that will be addressed with the proposed project can be established through a formal or informal risk assessment. FEMA encourages the use of local statistics to illustrate the applicant's particular vulnerability, rather than national statistics.
In a clear, concise statement, the applicant should summarize the precise vulnerability the project will address, including who is at risk, what the risks are, where the risks are, and how the risks can be prevented, reduced, or mitigated.
For the purpose of the FP&S program NOFO, formal risk assessments consist of the use of software programs or recognized expert analysis that assess risk trends.
Informal risk assessments could include an in-house review of available data (
Applicants must describe in detail not only the project components but also how the proposed project addresses the identified capability gap due to financial need and/or the specific vulnerabilities identified in the vulnerability statement. The following information should be included:
• Project components;
• Review of any existing programs or models that have been successful;
• Detailed description of how the proposed project components fill the identified capability gap; and
• If working with Fire Service partners/organizations, identify each partner/organization and the role(s) they will fill in the successful completion of the proposed project.
Each project proposal should include nuanced details on the implementation plan that discusses the proposed project's goals and objectives. The following information should be included to support the implementation plan:
• Goals and objectives;
• Details regarding the methods and specific steps that will be used to achieve the goals and objectives;
• Timelines outlining the chronological project steps (this is critical for determining the likelihood of the project's completion within the period of performance);
• Where applicable, examples of marketing efforts to promote the project, who will deliver the project (
• Requests for props (
• Where human subjects are involved, indicate whether the project has obtained exemption from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (for details see Section 9.A.a—Human Subjects Research of the FP&S Program NOFO).
Applicants proposing a complex project that may require a 24-month period of performance should include significant justification and details in the implementation plan that justify the applicant's need for a period of performance of more than 12 months.
Projects should include a plan for evaluation of effectiveness and identify measurable and quantifiable goals. Applicants seeking to carry out awareness and educational projects, for example, should identify how they intend to determine that there has been an increase in knowledge about fire hazards, or measure a change in the safety behaviors of the audience. Applicants should demonstrate how they will measure risk at the outset of the project in comparison to how much the risk decreased after the project is finished. There are various ways to measure the knowledge gained about fire hazards, including the use of surveys, pre- and post-tests, or documented observations. Applicants are encouraged to attend training on evaluation methods, such as the National Fire Academy's “Demonstrating Your Community Risk Reduction Program's Worth,”
In addition to a detailed evaluation plan as described above, if awarded, grant recipients are required to report on specific performance metrics through performance reports and at closeout (for details see Section 3.E—Performance Measures and Targets of the FP&S program NOFO).
Projects will be evaluated and scored by the Peer Review Panelists based on how well the applicant addresses the fire prevention needs of the department or organization in an economical and efficient manner. The applicant should show how it will maximize the level of funding that goes directly into the delivery of the project. The costs associated with the project also must be reasonable for the target audience that will be reached, and a description should be included of how the anticipated project benefit(s) (quantified if possible) outweighs the cost(s) of the requested item(s). The application should provide justification for all costs included in the project to assist the Technical Evaluation Panel with their review.
Peer review panelists will evaluate and score each project based on the following narrative elements:
Applicants should clearly identify the specific benefits of the proposed research project to improve firefighter safety, health, or well-being. The discussion should include: the specific risk to firefighter safety, health, or well-being that the project will address; the expected benefits of the project, including how the project could prevent, reduce, or mitigate the specific risk; the gaps in knowledge that will be addressed; and the general project methods planned to produce the intended results. If applying under Early Career Investigator, applicants should identify how this project will support the professional development of the Principal Investigator (PI). If applying under Preliminary Studies, applicants should consider the project being proposed as well as the potential results of a closely related future full-scale study.
Applicants should discuss the potential impact of the research outcome/product on firefighters. Applicants should discuss who will benefit directly from the research outcome/product,
Applicants should discuss how the outcomes/products of this research, if successful, are likely to be widely/nationally adopted and accepted by the fire service as changes that enhance firefighter safety, health, or well-being. The discussion should include the methods and costs associated with implementation at the fire department level; and organizations, manufacturers,
Applicants should identify and discuss potential fire service and other barriers to successfully completing the project on schedule, including contingencies and strategies to deal with barriers if they materialize. This may include barriers that could inhibit the proposed fire service participation in the project, barriers that could inhibit the adoption of successful results by the fire service when the project is completed, or project components most likely to cause delay in successful completion.
If applying under Early Career Investigator, applicants should discuss potential barriers specific to that project, such as if the principal investigator (PI) does not receive the expected mentorship.
Applicants should recognize that participation of the fire service as a partner in the research from development to dissemination is regarded as an essential part of all projects. Describe the fire service partners and contractors that will support the project to accomplish the objectives. The specific roles and contributions of the partners to the project should be described. Partnerships should be formed with national fire-related organizations and local and regional fire departments appropriate for the project. Letters of support and letters of commitment to actively participate in the project should be included in the Appendix attachment to the application. Generally, participants of a varied population, including both career and volunteer firefighters, are expected to facilitate acceptance of results nationally. In cases where this is not practical, due to the nature of the project or other limitations, these circumstances should be clearly explained.
Applicants should address how the purpose, goals, objectives, or specific aims of the project will lead to results that will improve firefighter safety, health, or well-being. Describe the specific goals, objectives or specific aims for each year of the project.
Applicants should provide a literature review that is relevant to the project's goals, objectives, and specific aims. The citations should be placed in the narrative text and the complete references listed at the end of the Narrative Statement (and not in the Appendix) of the application. The review should be of sufficient depth to make it clear that the proposed project is necessary, adds to an existing body of knowledge, is different from current and previous studies, and offers a unique contribution. Applicants may consider previously funded R&D Activity projects, available at
Applicants should provide a description of how the project will be carried out, including demonstration of the overall scientific and technical rigor and the merit of the project. This includes the operations to accomplish the purpose, goals, and objectives, and the specific aims of the project. The roles and responsibilities of the entire research team must be described, including the relevant sub-contractors and sub-awardees involved in the project. Applicants should provide supporting information for the research team in the Appendix, including bio sketches and budget information. Plans to recruit and retain human subjects, where applicable, should be described. Where human subjects are involved, describe plans for submission to the IRB (for details see Section 9.A—Human Subjects Research of the FP&S program NOFO).
Applicants should provide evidence of the technical rigor and merit of the project, such as data pertaining to validity, reliability, and sensitivity (where established) of the facilities, equipment, instruments, standards, and procedures that will be used to carry out the research. The applicant should discuss the data to be collected to evaluate the performance methods, technologies, and products proposed to enhance firefighter safety, health, or well-being. The applicant should demonstrate that the measurement methods and equipment selected for use are appropriate and sufficient to successfully deliver the proposed project objectives.
The applicant should indicate the planned approach for analysis of the data obtained from measurements, questionnaires, or computations. Specify within the plan what will be analyzed, the statistical methods that will be used, the sequence of steps, and interactions as appropriate. It should be clear that the PI and research team have the expertise to perform the planned analysis and defend the results in a peer review process. The adequacy of the number of participants, samples, or tests to address the research question should be discussed.
Applicants should indicate dissemination plans for both scientific audiences (
An important factor in the evaluation of Early Career Investigator projects is the participation of a mentor(s) in the project. A mentor for the PI should be an experienced researcher in areas appropriate to the research project and be able to provide support to the PI for ongoing development of knowledge and skills throughout the project. The mentor needs to have relationships with the fire service community sufficient to assist the PI in building relationships with fire departments and fire service organizations. The mentor has a role to support the applicant from defining the project and submitting the application for funding through the completion of a
• To avoid a duplication of benefits, FEMA reserves the right to review all program activities or grant applications where two or more organizations share a single facility. To be eligible as a separate organization, two or more fire departments, national, State, local, federally recognized Tribal government, and nonprofit interest organizations, and other nonprofit organizations, such as academic (
• For-profit organizations, Federal agencies, and individuals are not eligible to apply for FP&S Program funding.
AFG program awards are limited based on population served (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)(2)). Additionally, no single grant may exceed 1% of the available grant funds in a fiscal year, except where it is determined that a recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant in an amount that exceeds the 1% aggregate limit.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $2 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000 people, but not more than 1 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $2.91 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1 million people, but not more than 2.5 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient is subject to the 1% aggregate cap of $2.91 million for FY 2025. FEMA may waive this aggregate cap in individual cases where FEMA determines that a recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant that exceeds the aggregate cap. If FEMA waives the aggregate cap, the amount of grant funds awarded to such a recipient shall not exceed $6 million for any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 2.5 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient is subject to the 1% aggregate cap of $2.91 million for FY 2025. FEMA may waive this aggregate cap in individual cases where FEMA determines that a recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant that exceeds the aggregate cap. If FEMA waives the aggregate cap, the amount of grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9 million for any fiscal year.
• FEMA may not waive the population-based limits on the amount of grant funds awarded as set by 15 U.S.C. 2229(c)(2)(A).
The cumulative total of the Federal share of awards in Operations and Safety, Regional, and Vehicle Acquisition activities will be considered when assessing award amounts and any limitations thereto. Applicants may request funding up to the statutory limit on each of their applications.
For example, an applicant that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, may request up to $2 million on their Operations and Safety Application and up to $2 million on their Vehicle Acquisition request. However, should both grants be awarded, the applicant would have to choose which award to accept if the cumulative value of both applications exceeds the statutory limits.
AFG Program grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with applicable Federal regulations at 2 CFR part 200, but they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA validates that the grant recipient has provided sufficient evidence that the cost-share requirement will be fulfilled during the performance period of the grant award.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking a grant shall agree to make available non-Federal funds equal to not less than 15% of the grant awarded. However, the cost share will vary as follows based on the size of the population served by the organization, with exceptions to this general requirement for entities serving smaller communities:
Applicants that serve populations of 20,000 or less shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 5% of the grant awarded.
Applicants serving areas with populations above 20,000, but not more than 1 million, shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 10% of the grant awarded.
Applicants serving areas with populations above 1 million shall agree to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less than 15% of the grant awarded.
The cost share for SFTAs will apply the requirements above based on the total population of the State.
The cost share for a regional application will apply the requirements
On a case-by-case basis, FEMA may allow a grant recipient that may already own assets (equipment or vehicles), acquired with non-Federal cash, to use the trade-in allowance/credit value of those assets as “cash” for the purpose of meeting the cost-share obligation of their AFG program award. In-kind, cost-share matches are not allowed. Grant recipients under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). A grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the funding notice at not less than 80% of the average amount of such expenditures in the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
FP&S Program awards are limited to a maximum Federal share of $1.5 million dollars regardless of applicant type, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2229(d)(2). FP&S R&D Activity applicants that applied under the Early Career Investigator category are limited to a maximum Federal share of $600,000 per project.
Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in accordance with the applicable Federal regulations at 2 CFR part 200, but they were not required to have the cost share at the time of application nor are they required to have it at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA validates that the grant recipient provided sufficient evidence that the cost-share requirement will be fulfilled during the performance period of the grant award.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking an FP&S Program grant shall agree to make available non-Federal funds equal to not less than 5% of the grant awarded. Cash match and in-kind matches are both allowable. Cash (hard) matches include non-Federal cash spent for project-related costs. In-kind (soft) matches include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services; complementary activities; and provision of staff, facilities, services, material, or equipment. In-kind is the value of something received or provided that does not have a cost associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match (other than cash payments) is permitted, then the value of donated services could be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements provided the grant recipient receiving the contributions expends them as allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above.
Grant recipients under the FP&S program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). A grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the FP&S program NOFO at not less than 80% of the average amount of such expenditures in the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
Organizations may submit one application per application period in each of the three AFG Program activities (
Applicants may access the grant application electronically at
New applicants must register and establish a username and password for secure access to the grant application. Previous AFG program applicants must use their previously established username and password.
Applicants are expected to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the AFG Program funding priorities. In addition, each applicant must complete four separate narratives for each project or grant activity requested. Grant applicants will also provide relevant information about their organization's characteristics, call volume, and existing organizational capabilities.
Organizations may apply for funding under both eligible activities (FP&S and R&D) but must complete separate applications for each eligible activity. Each application may be for up to three projects under that activity; however, each project within an application must be presented separately as a free-standing proposal. Organizations are limited to one application per activity, per application period. If an organization submits more than one application for the same activity, either intentionally or unintentionally, both applications may be disqualified. Also note that any single entity is limited to a total award of $1.5 million from both activities.
Applicants access the grant application electronically at
The application is also accessible from the
Applicants are expected to answer questions about their grant request that reflect the FP&S Program funding priorities. In addition, applicants must complete narratives for each project requested.
During the FY 2025 FP&S program application period, FEMA released videos online to inform potential applicants about the FP&S Program. In addition, FEMA provided applicants with information on the FP&S web page,
Applicants can reach the Fire Grants Help Desk through a toll-free telephone number Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET (866-274-0960) or email at
Per 2 CFR 25.200, all Federal grant applicants and recipients must register at
For FY 2025, FEMA accepted, and will implement, most of the CDP's recommendations as described below.
The FY 2025 AFG and FP&S NOFOs contain some changes to definitions, descriptions, and priority categories from the previous fiscal year. Changes include:
• Under Equipment Activity: Priority 1 programs are now designated as High Priority, while Priority 2 programs are designated as Medium Priority.
• Under Wellness and Fitness Activity: a clarification that ineligible participants have been updated to anyone other than fire personnel, fire inspector, or EMS personnel;
• Props (single-use or permanent) essential for training programs requested in the application cannot exceed $100,000 for Operations and Safety.
• Excess Funds restrictions have been updated
• Period of Performance Extensions and amendment requests have been updated
• Under Appendix B, FP&S Activity Overview:
• Added Wildfire Sprinkler Trailers and Tripod Sprinklers as examples of eligible Wildfire Risk Reduction projects when proposed as part of a WUI education/awareness effort.
• Added salary and overtime expenses paid to backfill for activities during Origin and Cause Investigator training as an eligible project.
• Removed fire extinguisher training for adults over the age of 65 from the list of Ineligible Projects and Items.
Below is a list of recommendations that were not adopted for FY 2025 due to FEMA GO system limitations and the ability to update changes in the online platform:
• Brush Trucks have been added as a High-Priority vehicle request for Regional Applicants.
• To promote consistency and improve data tracking, tuition costs, travel expenses, and other common expenses as separate, selectable line-item options within the application.
• Limiting funding to exercise equipment, physical evaluations, and formal fitness program development costs, excluding other equipment or items identified as Priority 2 within the NOFO.
• Unscored question to be added in the application asking applicants to outline their plans for sustaining wellness and fitness awards the future.
• Add a new series of scored questions to more effectively assess the need for Wellness & Fitness funding and ensure alignment with program priorities.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The current effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4. The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having an effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of July 21, 2026 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
David N. Bascom, Acting Director, Engineering and Modeling Division, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Federal Insurance Directorate, Resilience has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO) within Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) submits the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. This is an extension and revision of the information collection 1670-0013 (SLTPS) Clearance Request Form (Form 9014) that was previously approved on October 17, 2023, with and expiration date of October 31, 2026.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 9, 2026. Submissions received after the deadline for receiving comments may not be considered.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number Docket # CISA-2026-0199, by following the instructions below for submitting comment via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Quintin Whitaker, 202-805-4959,
Partnerships between the U.S. Government and the state, local, tribal and private sector at times necessitate the sharing of classified information. The State, Local, Tribal and Private Sector (SLTPS) Clearance Request Form facilitates this sharing by sponsoring security clearances for certain members of each sector based on either their membership on a Sector Coordinating Council (SCC)/association or their infrastructure protection job-related duties and their need-to-know. The SLTPS Clearance Program is designed to sponsor security clearances for state, local, tribal and private sector officials involved in the infrastructure protection mission. These partners are subject matter experts within specific industries and have specialized knowledge not available within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other
The form updates will include removing CISCA and CCIPP from the drop-down capabilities box.
CISA collects necessary information through 1670-0013 to facilitate security clearances needed for sharing classified information with the vetted SLTPS Stakeholders.
The U.S. Government is authorized to ask for this information under Sections 2202 and 2212 of the Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. 107-296, 6 U.S.C. 652, 662), and Executive Orders 12968, 13526, 13549, 13636, and 13691 which authorize the collection of this information.
In order to begin this process of adjudicating a nominee to participate in the clearance program, federal nominators will complete the DHS Form 9014, State, Local, Tribal and Private Sector Clearance Request Form. The federal nominator will sign the form and have it approved by a senior-level official from the corresponding Federal Department or Agency. The signatures indicate the nominator and senior-level official have deemed the applicant have a CISA mission and meet the requirements and criteria as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13549, the Department of Homeland Security, Classified National Security Information Program for SLTPS Implementing Directive and E.O. 13691, Sec. 4(c), and 32 CFR, Part 117, Sec. 117.22 of the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM). Once submitted to the CISA Office of the Chief Security Officer (OCSO) the SLTPS Administrator will request the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and a record is created into the Integrated Security Management System (ISMS). The Security Specialist will initiate an eApplication (eAPP), the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency secure portal for investigation processing. Once the data is entered into e-App, the nominee is provided a password and can access the system and complete the online security questionnaire.
This is an extension request for an existing information collection. There are no substantive changes to the collection instrument.
This information is only available to Security Specialists within OCSO working on the program and is maintained in ISMS, which is “owned” by the OCSO. The two-part PII request process helps minimize the collection of sensitive PII for only those nominees who meet the threshold and are sponsored by CISA.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 9, 2026. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
You may submit comments, identified by docket number Docket #DHS-2026-0892, at:
○
On September 11, 1993, Executive Order 12862, “Setting Customer Service Standards” was issued. This Executive Order expressed the vision that Federal agencies will put the people first. Executive Order 12862 directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. Section 1(b) of Executive Order 12862 requires government agencies to “survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services” and Section 1(e) requires agencies “survey front-line employees on barriers to, and ideas for, matching the best in business.”
On March 30, 2016, the Core Federal Services Council was established. The Council emphasized the need to deliver world-class customer service to the American people. The Council,
These Presidential actions and requirements establish an ongoing process of collecting customer insights and using them to improve services. This new request will enable the Department of Homeland Security (hereafter “the Agency”) to act in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 Section 280, Executive Order 14058, and the OMB memoranda on burden reduction, to ultimately transform the experience of its customers to improve both efficiency and mission delivery and increase accountability by communicating about these efforts with the public.
The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify services' accessibility, navigation, and use by customers, and make improvements in service delivery based on customer insights gathered through developing an understanding of the user experience interacting with Government. For the purposes of this request, “customers” are individuals, businesses, and organizations that interact with a Federal Government agency or program, either directly or via a federal contractor.
“Service delivery” or “services” refers to the multitude of diverse interactions between a customer and Federal agency such as applying for a benefit or loan, receiving a service such as healthcare or small business counseling, requesting a document such as a passport or social security card, complying with a rule or regulation such as filing taxes or declaring goods, utilizing resources such as a park or historical site, or seeking information such as public health or consumer protection notices.
Under this request, three types of activities will be conducted to generate customer insights:
Customer Research (
Regardless of the format, the Agency will apply Human Centered Design (HCD) Discovery methods to generate personas and journey maps, ultimately identifying customer insights. An approach to recruiting participants, resources for preparing and structuring interviews, and a consent form for interviewees can be found at
Insights documented, summarized and presented in customer personas and journey maps can then be shared across the program, the Agency, other Federal, State, and Local government stakeholders and even with the public to validate and discuss common themes identified. These products can be used as “indicator lights” for where more rigorous qualitative and quantitative research can be conducted to improve Federal service delivery.
Publicly shared personas and journey maps will include language that qualifies their use (see question #16), and high-level, non-identifying descriptive statistics of the population(s) interviewed to develop it (ex. “25 Service members that transitioned to civilian employment within the last decade, 14 female, 11 male, 21 enlisted and 4 officers) to ensure that the perspective represented is understood. Quotes or insights will never be associated with an actual individual unless they have signed a release form (see link above for template) and this was included in the specific collection request.
Customer Feedback (Satisfaction Survey): Surveys to be considered under this generic clearance will only include those surveys modeled on the OMB Circular A-11 CX Feedback survey to improve customer service by collecting feedback at a specific point during a customer journey. This could include submitting a form online on a Federal website, speaking with a call center representative, paying off a loan, or visiting a Federal service center.
In an effort to develop comparable, government-wide scores that will enable cross-agency or industry benchmarking (when relevant) and a general indication of an agency's overall customer satisfaction, High Impact Service providers must refer to OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 for required survey question wording and organization.
As part of the Customer Experience CAP goal's strategy to increase transparency to drive accountability, the
User Testing of Services and Digital Products: Agencies should continually review, update and refine their service delivery, including communication materials, processes, supporting reference materials, and digital products associated with a federal program. This often requires “field testing” program informational materials, process updates, forms, or digital products (such as websites or mobile applications) by interacting with past, existing, or future customers and soliciting feedback. These activities can include cognitive laboratory studies, such as those used to refine questions on a program form to ensure clarity, demo kiosks at a service center where customers can provide informal feedback while waiting for a service, or more formally scheduled in-person observation testing (
The Agency will only submit under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours or burden hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used for general service improvement and program management purposes
• The agency will follow the procedures specified in OMB Circular A-11 Section 280 for the required quarterly reporting to OMB of trust data and experience driver data from surveys.
• Outside of the quarterly reporting mentioned in the bullet immediately above, if the agency intends to release journey maps, user personas, reports, or other data-related summaries stemming from this collection, the agency must include appropriate caveats around those summaries, noting that conclusions should not be generalized beyond the sample, considering the sample size and response rates. The agency must submit the data summary itself (
This clearance will help the Agency to establish a process where customer experience is regularly monitored and measured. The results will assist the Agency in the planning and decision-making processes to improve the quality of the Agency's products and services. Results from feedback activities and surveys will be used to measure against established baseline standards and for measuring the Agency's progress toward defined goals. There are neither legal nor technical obstacles to the use of technology in these information collection activities. The determination to use technology, and which technology to use, will be based on the type of information collected and the utility and the availability of specific technology to each respondent in a proposed customer research activity or feedback survey.
The information collected in these surveys will represent the minimum burden necessary to evaluate customer experience with the Agency's programs and processes. The Agency will minimize the burden on respondents by sampling as appropriate, asking for readily available information, and using short, easy-to-complete information collection instruments.
Without regular mechanisms for collecting and generating customer insights, the Agency is not able to provide the public with the highest level of service. These activities will be coordinated to ensure that most individual respondents will not be asked to respond to more than one survey instrument per transaction or to participate in more than one qualitative feedback or testing activity.
Activity and survey instructions will provide all necessary assurances of confidentiality to the respondents. Although there is no requirement for such an assurance in statute, the quality of this type of information requires respondent candor and anonymity.
There is no change in information being collected or the burden.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. 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;
2. 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;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 13, 2026.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John R. Pfirrmann-Powell, Acting Deputy Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for two of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) citizens' advisory councils affiliated with specific sites on BLM's National Conservation Lands. The two advisory councils provide advice and recommendations to the BLM in accordance with the statute under which the sites were established. The advisory councils covered by this request for nominations are identified below.
All nominations must be received no later than October 26, 2026.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices listed in the
Carrie Richardson, BLM Office of External and Intergovernmental Affairs, at telephone: (202) 742-0625, email:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory committees that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The rules governing BLM Advisory Committees are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784.
Individuals may nominate themselves or others for appointment by the Secretary. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the advisory council has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographic area of the advisory committees. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making.
Before including any address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in the application, nominees should be aware this information may be made publicly available at any time. While the nominee can ask to withhold the personally identifiable information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. Nomination forms and instructions can be obtained for each council from the points of contact listed below by mail or by phone request or online at
Nominees should note the interest area(s) they are applying to represent on their application. All applications must be accompanied by letters of reference that describe the nominee's experience and qualifications to serve on the council from any represented interests or organizations, a completed application, and any other information that speaks to the nominee's qualifications.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the office listed below:
Udom Hong, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-2818; phone: (202) 754-2076; email:
The SMAC provides advice and recommendations to the BLM regarding management of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA) and in promoting cooperative management under the Steens Act. It consists of 13 members that are representative of the varied groups with an interest in the management of the Steens Mountain CMPA including a private landowner in the CMPA; two persons who are grazing permittees on Federal lands in the CMPA; a person interested in fish and recreational fishing within the CMPA; a member of the Bums Paiute Tribe; two persons who are recognized environmental representatives, one of whom shall represent the State as a whole, and one of whom is from the local area; a representative of dispersed recreation; a recreational permit holder or, is a representative of a commercial recreation operation in the CMPA; a representative of mechanized or, consumptive recreation; a person with expertise and interest in wild horse management on Steens Mountain; a person who has no financial interest in the CMPA to represent statewide interests; and a non-voting State government liaison to the Council.
Celene Nemeroff, BLM Utah State Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; phone: (720) 355-2426; email:
The Council advises the BLM on the preparation and implementation of the management plan for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. It consists of seven members that represent the Emery County Commission; motorized recreational users; non-motorized recreational users; a grazing allotment permittee within the Recreation Area or, wilderness areas designated; conservation organizations; a member with expertise in the historical uses of the Recreation Area; and an elected leader of a federally recognized Tribe that has significant cultural or, historic connections to, and expertise in, the landscape, archeological sites, or cultural sites within the County.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plat of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern States Office, Falls Church, Virginia, 30 days from the date of this publication. The surveys, executed at the request of the National Park Service, are required for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM Eastern States Office prior to the
A copy of the plat may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM Eastern States, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA, 22041, upon required payment. The plat may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Frank D. Radford, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Eastern States; (703) 558-7759; email:
The plat incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey of a portion of National Park Service Tract No. 101-55, of the Obed Wild and Scenic River, 8th Civil District, Morgan County, in the State of Tennessee, was accepted September 30, 2024.
The plat incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey of a portion of National Park Service Tract No. 103-08, of the Obed Wild and Scenic River, 8th Civil District, Morgan County, in the State of Tennessee, was accepted September 26, 2025.
The plat incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey of a portion of National Park Service Scenic Easement Tract No. 103-01, of the Obed Wild and Scenic River, 8th Civil District, Morgan County, in the State of Tennessee, was accepted September 30, 2025.
A person or party who wishes to protest an official filing of plat(s) identified above must file a written notice of protest with the BLM State Director for Eastern States, at the address listed in the
The notice of protest must identify the specific plat that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be received in the BLM Eastern Office no later than the scheduled date of the proposed official filing of plat being protested, see the
A written statement of reasons in support of the protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the BLM State Director for Eastern States within 30 days after the notice of protest is received.
If a notice of protest of the official filing of plat is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. Plat will not be officially filed until the next business day after all timely protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for 20 of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) statewide and regional Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) that have vacant positions or members whose terms are scheduled to expire. These RACs provide advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within the geographic areas for which the RACs are organized.
All nominations must be received no later than October 26, 2026.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the appropriate BLM offices listed in the
Carrie Richardson, BLM Office of External and Intergovernmental Affairs, at telephone: (202) 742-0625, email:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, RAC membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing RACs are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784 and include the following three membership categories:
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State in which the RAC has jurisdiction. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of
The following must accompany all nominations:
Simultaneously with this notice, BLM Offices will issue news releases providing additional information for submitting nominations.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the office listed below:
Melinda Bolton, BLM Alaska State Office, 4th floor, 222 W 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99516; phone: (907) 271-3342; email:
Wayne Monger, BLM Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-4427; phone: (602) 417-9200; email:
Julie Hartley, BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W1623, Sacramento, CA 95825; phone: (279) 599-3857; email:
Robert Rotts, Montrose Public Lands Center, 2505 S Townsend Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401; phone: (970) 240-5430; email:
Ken Anderson, BLM Idaho State Office, 1387 S Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709; phone: (208) 373-3833; email:
David LeFevre, BLM Billings Field Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, MT 59101; phone: (406) 896-5072; email:
Tammy Boyd, BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502; phone: (775) 861-6536; email:
Jillian Aragon, BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508; phone: (505) 635-9701; email:
Udom Hong, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204-2818; phone: (202) 754-2076; email:
Brad Purdy, BLM Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009; phone: (307) 775-6015; email:
Celene Nemeroff, BLM Utah State Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; phone: (720) 355-2426; email:
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1770 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of fresh winter strawberries from Mexico, provided for in subheading 0810.10.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value.
August 21, 2026.
Caitlyn Costello (202-205-2058), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Winter strawberries may be stemmed or destemmed, whole or sliced, imported in bulk or loose form, or may be imported in individual containers packaged for retail sale. The scope of this investigation includes all winter strawberries, whether or not organic, regardless of production method, and irrespective of color, grade, shape, size, or packaging. Subject merchandise may be cleaned, coated (including chocolate covered or other coated confectionary items), washed, waxed, inspected, subjected to metal detection, and/or vacuum cooled prior to importation, including winter strawberries that undergo further processing in a third country.”
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on January 4, 2027. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on January 5, 2027. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of renewal of Advisory Committee.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries announces the renewal of the charter of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, 202-317-3648,
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee.
Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that renewing the committee is in the public interest:
(
(
(
(
(
All committee members are appointed as Special Government Employees and selected primarily for their technical experience. The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) attempts to ensure maximum practicable representation on the committee of most points of view extant in the enrolled actuary community. To that end, the Joint Board seeks to appoint members with expertise in one or more of the three main practice areas: small single employer plans, large single employer plans, and multiemployer plans.
To the extent possible, the Joint Board selects several members from each of these practice areas. Membership balance is not static and may change depending on the work of the committee. To attain balanced membership, the Joint Board limits the number of members employed by any one firm or affiliated with any one actuarial organization. In addition, to the extent possible, the Joint Board seeks geographic representation of members.
The Joint Board is the only federal agency responsible for writing actuarial examinations and setting other criteria to determine actuaries' qualifications for enrollment under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Thus, the functions the committee performs cannot be obtained from other sources within the government. Moreover, the committee's functions cannot be performed effectively by members of the Joint Board. The Joint Board consists of five federal government employees, three from the Department of the Treasury and two from the Department of Labor. In addition, a non-voting representative from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is appointed to the Board. Each Joint Board member serves on the Joint Board in addition to substantial responsibilities in the member's home department. The committee supplies a breadth of current practice experience across small single-employer, large single-employer, and multiemployer plans that is not available from the five-member Joint Board alone. The Joint Board has not identified a more cost-effective or less burdensome source that would provide equivalent breadth, independence, continuity, and balanced review. Obtaining equivalent advice through contractors or a single professional organization would create additional cost or administrative burden and would not provide the same multi-practice, collective review. Committee members receive no compensation, although authorized travel and related expenses may be reimbursed. The Joint Board retains all final decision-making authority.
Each year, the committee develops and recommends the three examinations and two examination program booklets that are used in the Joint Board's examination program. In addition, the committee reviews the examination results and recommends a passing score for each of the three examinations given in that year. The committee also assists the Joint Board with special projects including developing blueprints for the examinations and identifying any changes needed in the examination program structure to reflect changes in the law and regulations and evolving trends in the practice of enrolled actuaries. The Joint Board could not fulfill its mandate under section 3042 of ERISA to maintain standards and qualifications for enrolled actuaries without the technical expertise and assistance of the committee.
Section 3042 of ERISA establishes the framework for enrolling actuaries who are authorized to perform actuarial services required under ERISA for private pension plans. The provision directs the Joint Board to establish standards and qualifications for enrollment, ensuring that only individuals with the necessary technical expertise and professional competence may certify actuarial valuations, funding calculations, and other required pension
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.
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), United States Department of Labor (DOL).
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request 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 Office of Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor, (ODEP) is soliciting comments on the information collection for the NEON Provider Organization Survey.
All comments must be received on or before November 9, 2026.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• ODEP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Richard Davis, Office of Disability Employment Policy, ODEP, at
The U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) established the National Expansion of Employment Opportunities Network (NEON) initiative, which, among other activities, assists National Provider Organizations (NPOs) and their affiliated Local Provider Organizations (LPOs) in advancing competitive integrated employment. Technical assistance supports NPOs and LPOs to build capacity to offer more options for competitive integrated employment job placements and explore new strategies to effectively increase job placement outcomes. ODEP has requested an increased focus on measuring performance outcomes for participating providers and states, and therefore NEON developed this semi-annual data collection survey for LPOs receiving support. This survey fulfills the three key purposes of (1) demonstrating impact by measuring the nationwide impact of NEON for ODEP and its federal partners and stakeholders; (2) prioritizing outcomes by establishing real-world outcomes as the primary indicator of success for employment providers; and (3) building capacity by helping partner organizations better manage, track, and measure their performance data.
ODEP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the NEON Provider Organization Survey. ODEP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of ODEP's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the NEON Provider Organization Survey. ODEP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) Monitoring Report and Complaint/Apparent Violation Form.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by November 9, 2026.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained for free by contacting Laura Tramontana by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, Room C 4510, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; by email to
Laura Tramontana by telephone at 202-693-3980 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
Pursuant to 20 CFR 653.109, State Workforce Agencies (SWA) use Form ETA-5148 to submit to DOL quarterly data on the services they provide to MSFWs. DOL uses that data to monitor and measure the extent and effectiveness of SWA Employment Service (ES) delivery and compliance with 20 CFR parts 651, 653, and 658. ETA proposes to add an instruction document for completing Form ETA-5148 but does not propose to change the form itself. While ETA is temporarily not enforcing the Minimum Service Level Indicators in Part 3 and certain SMA Annual Report elements in Part 4, as described in Training and Employment Notice 09-25, ETA is not proposing to alter the form through this revision in order to maintain alignment with the current ES regulations.
Pursuant to 20 CFR 658.411, SWAs use the Complaint/Apparent Violation Form, Form ETA-8429 to record and process complaints and apparent violations, as defined at 20 CFR 651.10. ETA proposes to revise Form ETA-8429 so that there will be separate forms for complaints and apparent violations. ETA also proposes to add instruction documents for each form. The intent of these revisions is to clarify processes for external and internal users.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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, (
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Wage and Hour Division (WHD)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before October 13, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nora Hernandez by telephone at 202-693-8633, or by email at
The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor (Department) administers the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA) and Davis-Bacon Related Acts (DBRA), 40 U.S.C. 3141
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
DOL 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 DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. The Department of Labor seeks approval for the revision of this information collection to ensure effective administration of the laws administered by the WHD.
Office of the Secretary.
Appointment of members of the Performance Review Board.
Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that Notice of the Appointment of the individual to serve as a member of the Performance Review Board of the Senior Executive Service shall be published in the
Tania Burkley, Chief, Division of Executive Resources, Room C2318, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-7638.
The following individuals are hereby
Signed at Washington, DC.
Current Title: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program Budget and Narrative
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS is soliciting comments on the information collection request (ICR) for OMB Control No. 1293-0018
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments electronically by any of the following methods:
•
•
Comments, including any personal information provided, become a matter of public record. They will also be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request.
Kate McCord, Management and Program Analyst, DOL-VETS, by email at
The Department of Labor's VETS administers funds for the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program (HVRP) grant on an annual basis. These competitive grants are codified under 38 U.S.C. 2021, 2021A, and 2023. VETS provides funds to grant recipients through annual Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) and incremental funding throughout the grant's three-year (12 quarters) period of performance. The total number of grant recipients varies from year to year based on the amount of available funds. Grants are awarded up to $500,000 each year, for a total of up to $1,500,000 for the three-year period of performance.
The Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training monitors and supervises the distribution and use of those funds as required by 38 U.S.C. 2021 and 38 U.S.C. 2021A.
VETS is proposing the following revisions:
• Organized questions into three Excel worksheets named “Abstract-1”, “Abstract-2”, and “Abstract-3” that focus on the proposed grant type, funding requests, physical location, service delivery area, and narrative responses.
• Added organization identifiers/contact information and automated inputs for geographic data and saturation level scores for the service delivery area.
• Added justification fields to align with FOA requirements, clarified instructions, and removed outdated fields, such as other non-HVRP funding sources.
• Renamed the Excel worksheet to “PGC-4” and removed outdated or relocated reference worksheets, such as prior program year outcomes by state and the average living wages by state/county.
• Introduced automatic calculations for key metrics (
• Updated terminology to align with current HVRP policy and guidance.
• Converted the form to an Excel worksheet named “CoPP-5” and integrated it into the workbook that contains the Abstract and Planned Goals Chart.
• Added structured questions on prior awards, operational timelines,
• Revised and expanded performance indicator questions (risk designation, performance/financial reporting timeliness, and unexpended funds).
• Added an automated calculation of the number of points awarded.
• Changed the name of the form to “Budget Narrative” for clarity.
• Added fields for position hours worked per week with an automated calculation of quarterly hours and changed the percent-FTE field from respondent entry to an automated calculation.
VETS is particularly interested in comments on these topics:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of VETS' estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
VETS has listed the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request. VETS seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. VETS notes that currently approved information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Forms:
• Abstract-PGC-CoPP
• Budget Narrative
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request 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 Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is soliciting comments on the information collection for the OWCP-16, Rehabilitation Plan and Award.
All comments must be received on or before November 9, 2026.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• OWCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, at
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is the agency responsible for administration of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). 33 U.S.C. 939 (LHWCA) and 5 U.S.C. 8104 and 8111 (FECA) authorize OWCP to pay for approved vocational rehabilitation services to eligible workers with work-related disabilities. In order to decide whether to approve a rehabilitation plan, OWCP must receive a copy of the plan, supporting vocational testing materials and the estimated cost to implement the plan, broken down to show the fees, supplies, tuition and worker maintenance payments that are contemplated. OWCP also must receive the signatures of the
•
•
•
•
OWCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Rehabilitation Plan and Award. OWCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OWCP/DFEC/DLHWC's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the Rehabilitation Plan and Award, Form OWCP-16. OWCP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). We publish notice in the
We must receive responses on the schedules listed in this notice by October 26, 2026.
To view a records schedule in this notice, or submit a comment on one, use the following address:
This is a direct link to the schedules posted in the docket for this notice on
•
If you are unable to comment via regulations.gov, you may email us at
Richard Green, Records Management Operations, by email at
We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.
In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule.
We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the
We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket
We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we may or may not make changes to the proposed records schedule. The schedule is then sent for final approval by the Archivist of the United States. After the schedule is approved, we will post on
We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.
Schedules Pending:
1. Department of Homeland Security, Investigation, Vetting, Assessment and Inspection Records (DAA-0563-2025-0002).
2. Department of Justice, Executive Clemency (DAA-0204-2024-0002).
3. Department of State, Consolidated Schedule: Records of the Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (DAA-0059-2025-0005).
4. Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, Strategic National Stockpile Records (DAA-0611-2026-0001).
5. Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft and Airman Certification Records (DAA-0237-2023-0018).
6. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Medical records for visitors, both civilian and contractors (DAA-0457-2026-0001).
7. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Duplicate Dental Panographs and Radiographs (DAA-0330-2026-0002).
8. Veterans Benefits Administration, Entrance and Exit X-rays (DAA-0015-2025-0057).
9. Veterans Health Administration, Care in Community, Health and Medical Care Program, VA (DAA-0015-2025-0054).
10. Veterans Health Administration, Comprehensive Environment of Care (CEOC) (DAA-0015-2025-0050).
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
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.
3.
4.
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
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
An entity conducting an exempt cross-border business combination or rights offering is required to file a Form CB (17 CFR 249.480) to the extent the party would have had a filing obligation if the transaction were not eligible for the exemption. Form CB is intended to help the Commission determine whether a transaction meets the eligibility requirements of the exemptive rules. Form CB also helps to ensure that information about the transaction is publicly available in order to help security holders make informed investment decisions. We estimate that approximately 49 respondents make one Form CB filing per year, for a total of approximately 49 responses annually. We estimate that respondents incur approximately 0.12 burden hours per Form CB filing, for a total annual reporting burden of 6 hours (0.12 hours per response × 49 responses). We estimate that respondents incur $225 cost burden per Form CB filing, for a total annual cost burden of $11,025 ($225 cost per response × 49 responses).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5.
Colocation Note 4 includes a table of “Included Data Products” that lists the market data feeds that Users
Similarly, Colocation Note 5 lists the market data feeds available over the NMS network. As in Colocation Note 4, the list in Colocation Note 5 currently includes three “NMS Feeds,” two of which are referred to as “CTA” and “CQ.”
The names “CTA” and “CQ” do not actually refer to the data feeds themselves, but rather, to the names of the NMS Plans pursuant to which the data feeds are currently disseminated—
Beginning April 1, 2027,
In light of this upcoming transition, the Exchange proposes to amend the list of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 and the list of feeds available over the NMS network in Colocation Note 5 to refer to these data feeds by their actual names, CTS and CQS.
This is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding transparency and specificity to the rule. In light of the upcoming transition to the CT Plan, the Exchange believes that market participants may be confused if the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 continue to refer to the CTS and CQS data feeds as “CTA” and “CQ,” potentially prompting questions about whether the data feeds themselves will be changing. The Exchange believes investors and the public interest would be protected by revising the list in advance of such transition to refer to these data feeds by their correct names, CTS and CQS.
As noted above, this is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the Model Validation Framework (“MVF”) and the Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures (“Treasury Operations Policy”) for the CDS Clearing Service. These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC CDS Clearing Rules (the “Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the MVF and Treasury Operations Policy for the CDS Clearing Service. The MVF provides assurances that ICC Models
ICC proposes clarifications and clean-up changes to the MVF, including clarifying its applicability to the CDS Clearing Service and updating references to existing committees and a working group. Such changes are designed to reflect current practices. ICC proposes to re-title the MVF from “Model Validation Framework” to “CDS Clearing Service Model Validation Framework” to clarify its applicability to the CDS Clearing Service.
ICC proposes revisions to more specifically identify the CDS Risk Committee and reflect its existing model validation responsibilities in the MVF. In particular, the MVF assigns various model validation responsibilities to the “Risk Committee” throughout the document. ICC proposes to replace references to the “Risk Committee” with more specific references to the “CDS Risk Committee.” These changes do not represent a departure in existing practice, as the CDS Risk Committee currently performs these functions. Rather, these changes clarify that such provisions refer to the CDS Risk Committee, given the recent establishment of the Board Risk Committee, to more clearly distinguish between the two committees.
• Under amended Section 1.2, ICC consults with the CDS Risk Committee when adding or retiring a Model, or adding, enhancing, or retiring its components (“Model Components”).
• Under amended Section 1.3, the CDS Risk Committee reviews materiality classifications and provides feedback as necessary.
• Under amended Section 2.2, the ICC Risk Oversight Officer (“ROO”) maintains a list of pre-approved independent model validators, which the CDS Risk Committee reviews; presents new model validators to the CDS Risk Committee for consultation; and is responsible for reassessing selected model validators' continued independence and presenting this assessment to the CDS Risk Committee.
• Under amended Section 2.4, the Model Inventory (
• Under amended Section 3.2, the ICC Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”) describes Model Changes to the CDS Risk Committee.
• Under amended Subsection 3.2.1.a, the Board approves the final methodology for a Model Change after review and recommendation by the CDS Risk Committee.
• Under amended Subsection 3.2.1.b, ICC obtains approval from the Board after review by the CDS Risk Committee with respect to changes to certain elements of ongoing monitoring and validation (“OM&V”).
• Under amended Subsection 3.2.2.b, ICC, in consultation with the CDS Risk Committee, may determine certain low priority issues do not reflect a potential deficiency.
• Under amended Subsection 3.2.2.c, ICC obtains a no-objection to the independent validation from the CDS
• Under amended Section 3.4, the CRO informs the CDS Risk Committee regarding OM&V results triggering an investigation.
• Under amended Section 3.5, the ROO, in consultation with the CDS Risk Committee, sets an established periodicity for independent periodic review.
• Under amended Subsection 3.5.2, ICC agrees on timeframes with the CDS Risk Committee on remediation; ICC, in consultation with the CDS Risk Committee, may determine that low priority issues do not reflect a potential deficiency; the ROO and CRO (or designee) present the independent periodic review report to the CDS Risk Committee for acceptance; and ICC consults with the CDS Risk Committee regarding closure of items.
ICC also proposes to incorporate references to a recently established committee and working group. In amended Section 2.4, ICC would specify that the Model Inventory includes the date the Board Risk Committee recommended Board approval. Under amended Subsection 3.2.1, the Board would approve the final methodology for a Model Change after review and recommendation by the Board Risk Committee, and ICC would obtain approval from the Board after review by the Board Risk Committee with respect to changes to certain elements of OM&V. Additionally, under amended Subsection 3.2.1, Model Changes that rise to a certain level of materiality are subject to peer review through ICC's Risk Advisory Working Group. The proposed changes are intended to memorialize the roles of the Board Risk Committee and Risk Advisory Working Group with respect to model validation governance.
ICC proposes clarifications and clean-up changes to the Treasury Operations Policy, including clarifying its applicability to the CDS Clearing Service, updating references to existing committees, and updating a reporting line. Such changes are intended to reflect current practices. ICC proposes to re-title the Treasury Operations Policy from “ICE Clear Credit LLC Treasury Operations Policies & Procedures” to “ICE Clear Credit LLC CDS Clearing Service Treasury Operations Policies & Procedures” to clarify its applicability to the CDS Clearing Service. Similarly, ICC proposes to amend Section I to specify that the Treasury Operations Policy describes the policies and procedures used to support the Treasury functions of the CDS Clearing Service.
ICC proposes to amend Section II to update a reporting line. The current language states that ICC's Treasury function is overseen by the Treasury Director who reports to the ICC Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). ICC proposes to remove reference to the COO, as the Treasury Director currently reports directly to the ICC President.
ICC proposes additional changes to reference existing committees. ICC proposes to amend Section X of the Treasury Operations Policy, which contains the Revision History and sets out the governance process applicable to the document's annual review. The proposed amendments reflect that the Treasury Operations Policy is subject to review by both the CDS Risk Committee and the Board Risk Committee at least annually. The amendments add an express reference to the Board Risk Committee and clarify that the existing reference to the “Risk Committee” refers to the “CDS Risk Committee”. ICC also proposes changes to Appendix 1 of the Treasury Operations Policy to specify that the CDS Risk Committee and the Board Risk Committee will review proposed changes to the investment policy and make recommendations to the Board. These revisions similarly add an express reference to the Board Risk Committee and clarify that the existing reference to the “Risk Committee” refers to the “CDS Risk Committee”. Such changes are intended to reflect existing practices in line with the existing responsibilities of such committees.
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments would also satisfy relevant requirements of Rule 17ad-22.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(4)(vii)
ICC does not believe the proposed amendments will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed rule change consists of clarification or clean-up changes to the MVF and Treasury Operations Policy to reflect current practices. The changes will apply uniformly across all market participants. ICC does not believe these amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5. The proposed
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5.
Colocation Note 4 includes a table of “Included Data Products” that lists the market data feeds that Users
Similarly, Colocation Note 5 lists the market data feeds available over the NMS network. As in Colocation Note 4, the list in Colocation Note 5 currently includes three “NMS Feeds,” two of which are referred to as “CTA” and “CQ.”
The names “CTA” and “CQ” do not actually refer to the data feeds themselves, but rather, to the names of the NMS Plans pursuant to which the data feeds are currently disseminated—
Beginning April 1, 2027,
In light of this upcoming transition, the Exchange proposes to amend the list of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 and the list of feeds available over the NMS network in Colocation Note 5 to refer to these data feeds by their actual names, CTS and CQS.
This is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding transparency and specificity to the rule. In light of the upcoming transition to the CT Plan, the Exchange believes that market participants may be confused if the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 continue to refer to the CTS and CQS data feeds as “CTA” and “CQ,” potentially prompting questions about whether the data feeds themselves will be changing. The Exchange believes investors and the public interest would be protected by revising the list in advance of such transition to refer to these data feeds by their correct names, CTS and CQS.
As noted above, this is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 425 (17 CFR 230.425) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5.
Colocation Note 4 includes a table of “Included Data Products” that lists the market data feeds that Users
Similarly, Colocation Note 5 lists the market data feeds available over the NMS network. As in Colocation Note 4, the list in Colocation Note 5 currently includes three “NMS Feeds,” two of which are referred to as “CTA” and “CQ.”
The names “CTA” and “CQ” do not actually refer to the data feeds themselves, but rather, to the names of the NMS Plans pursuant to which the data feeds are currently disseminated—
Beginning April 1, 2027,
In light of this upcoming transition, the Exchange proposes to amend the list of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 and the list of feeds available over the NMS network in Colocation Note 5 to refer to these data feeds by their actual names, CTS and CQS.
This is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding transparency and specificity to the rule. In light of the upcoming transition to the CT Plan, the Exchange believes that market participants may be confused if the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 continue to refer to the CTS and CQS data feeds as “CTA” and “CQ,” potentially prompting questions about whether the data feeds themselves will be changing. The Exchange believes investors and the public interest would be protected by revising the list in advance of such transition to refer to these data feeds by their correct names, CTS and CQS.
As noted above, this is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding colocation services and fees to make a non-substantive change to the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5.
Colocation Note 4 includes a table of “Included Data Products” that lists the market data feeds that Users
Similarly, Colocation Note 5 lists the market data feeds available over the NMS network. As in Colocation Note 4, the list in Colocation Note 5 currently includes three “NMS Feeds,” two of which are referred to as “CTA” and “CQ.”
The names “CTA” and “CQ” do not actually refer to the data feeds themselves, but rather, to the names of the NMS Plans pursuant to which the data feeds are currently disseminated—
Beginning April 1, 2027,
In light of this upcoming transition, the Exchange proposes to amend the list of Included Data Products in Colocation Note 4 and the list of feeds available over the NMS network in Colocation Note 5 to refer to these data feeds by their actual names, CTS and CQS.
This is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would protect investors and the public interest and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding transparency and specificity to the rule. In light of the upcoming transition to the CT Plan, the Exchange believes that market participants may be confused if the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 continue to refer to the CTS and CQS data feeds as “CTA” and “CQ,” potentially prompting questions about whether the data feeds themselves will be changing. The Exchange believes investors and the public interest would be protected by revising the list in advance of such transition to refer to these data feeds by their correct names, CTS and CQS.
As noted above, this is a non-substantive change. Only the names of the data feeds on the lists in Colocation Notes 4 and 5 would change. There would be no change to the data feeds themselves, nor would there be any change to their inclusion as Included Data Products or feeds available over the NMS network.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13.4(a) (Usage of Data Feeds) to reflect the operation of Texas Stock Exchange LLC (“Texas Stock Exchange”) as a registered national securities exchange, and to reflect the name changes of Nasdaq BX, Inc (“Nasdaq BX”) to Nasdaq Texas, LLC (“Nasdaq Texas”) and of NYSE Chicago, Inc. (“NYSE Chicago”) to NYSE Texas, Inc. (“NYSE Texas”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Exchange Rule 13.4(a) (Usage of Data Feeds) lists the specific data feeds the Exchange uses for the handling, execution and routing of orders, as well as for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange Rules. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13.4(a) to reflect the operation of Texas Stock Exchange as a registered national securities exchange, and to reflect the name changes of Nasdaq BX to Nasdaq Texas and of NYSE Chicago to NYSE Texas.
On September 30, 2025, the Commission approved the Texas Stock Exchange's application to register as a national securities exchange.
In addition, both Nasdaq BX and NYSE Chicago filed with the Commission respective proposals to convert from a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware to one organized under the laws of the state of Texas, and correspondingly changed their names from Nasdaq BX, Inc. to Nasdaq Texas, LLC and from and NYSE Chicago, Inc. to NYSE Texas, Inc.
The proposed changes are conforming and non-substantive in nature.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to update Rule 13.4(a) to include Texas Stock Exchange and to correctly reference Nasdaq Texas and NYSE Texas will ensure that the Rule correctly identities and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. In addition, the proposed amendment would reduce potential investor and market participant confusion and therefore remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that investors and market participants can more easily navigate, understand, and comply with the Exchange's rules. The proposed amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from the increased transparency and clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion.
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 is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating Rule 13.4(a) to reflect a complete and accurate list of exchange names associated with a source of data utilized when performing order handling, execution, and routing, and for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the 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 prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to October 13, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Application Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
The completed form DS-3013, DS-3013-S and DS-3013-P may be submitted to the Office of Children's Issues by mail, by fax, or electronically accessed through
There was one non relevant public comment received in response to the 60 day notice. The commenter did not provide identity and simply attached a copy of the 60 day
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 13224, as amended (“E.O. 13224” or “Order”), I hereby determine that the person known as Los Tiguerones (also known as Los Fenix and Los Igualitos) is a foreign person who has committed or has attempted to commit, poses a significant risk of committing, or has participated in training to commit acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This determination shall be published in the
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I have concluded that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to: Los Tiguerones (also known as Los Fenix and Los Igualitos).
Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its respective aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice Tentatively Approving and Authorizing Continuance in Control.
On August 11, 2026, Flix SE, a noncarrier, Flix North America Inc. (Flix North America), a noncarrier, and Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), an interstate passenger motor carrier (collectively, Applicants), filed an application seeking Board approval to continue in control of Greyhound Central Bus LLC (Central), a newly formed subsidiary of Applicants, upon Central becoming a federally regulated passenger motor carrier. The Board is tentatively approving and authorizing the proposed continuance in control. If no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Comments must be filed by October 26, 2026. If any comments are filed, Applicants may file a reply November 9, 2026. If no opposing comments are filed by October 26, 2026, this notice shall be effective on October 27, 2026.
Comments, referring to Docket No. MCF 21155, may be filed with the Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to Applicants' representative: Andrew K. Light, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., 10 W Market Street, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Sarah Fancher at (202) 740-5507. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
According to the application, Flix SE is a privately held German holding company that owns and controls affiliates in several countries, including in the Americas
• Greyhound, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that is directly owned and controlled by Flix North America
• Valley, a Texas corporation headquartered in Brownsville, Tex., that is a wholly owned affiliate of Greyhound and operates scheduled intercity passenger bus service, particularly in South Texas and United States-Mexico transborder areas, (
• Americanos, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Albuquerque, N.M., that is a wholly owned affiliate of Greyhound and operates part of Greyhound's nationwide scheduled intercity passenger bus service, particularly in the United States-Mexico transborder areas of Texas and California, (
• Greyhound Mexico, a Mexican corporation headquartered in Monterrey, Nuevo León, that is an affiliate of Greyhound with primary service areas in Mexico that range to the United States-Mexico transborder areas of Texas and California, (
The remaining Americas Affiliates do not hold operating authority and are described as follows:
• Flix North America, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that is a holding company and shared services provider for its subsidiaries, (
• FBI, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that provides the brokerage technology platform for FlixBus and directly owns and controls FlixBus Canada ULC (FlixBus Canada), (
• FlixBus Canada, an Alberta company headquartered in Calgary, Alta., Canada, (
• Safe Transport, a Delaware company headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that owns 0.1% of the equity stock of Greyhound Mexico, (
• Atlantic Greyhound Lines of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that is wholly owned by Greyhound, (
• BUS Risk Retention Group, Inc., a South Carolina corporation headquartered in Charleston, S.C., that is a captive risk retention entity that writes primary general and automotive liability insurance for affiliated entities of Flix North America, and whose equity ownership is as follows: 99% Greyhound, 0.25% Valley, 0.25% Americanos, and 0.25% LSX Delivery, LLC,
• Pacific, a newly created Delaware company headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that is wholly owned and controlled by Greyhound. (
• Greyhound Midwest Bus LLC (Midwest), a newly created Delaware company, headquartered in Dallas, Tex., that is wholly owned and controlled by Greyhound. (
• FlixBus Peru S.A.C., a Peruvian corporation headquartered in Lima, Peru, that provides a brokerage network technology platform for intercity passenger motor carrier travel in Peru and is 99.9% owned by LATAM and 0.1% owned by Flix SE, (
• Flixbus Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico, that provides a brokerage network technology platform for intercity passenger motor carrier travel in Mexico and is 99.998% owned by LATAM and 0.002% owned by Flix North America, (
• LATAM, a Mexican corporation headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico, that provides various support services by contract for the Americas Affiliates, including accounting and human resources, and which is 99.998% owned by Flix SE and 0.002% owned by Flix North America, (
In the application, Applicants seek Board approval to continue in control of Central upon its obtaining authority to operate as a regulated passenger motor carrier.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds is consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least (1) the effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public, (2) the total fixed charges resulting from the proposed transaction, and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees. Here, Applicants have submitted the information required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including (1) information to demonstrate that Applicants' continuance in control of Central upon it becoming a regulated passenger motor carrier is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b),
Applicants submit evidence that granting the application would be consistent with the public interest. (Appl. 12-14.) According to Applicants, Applicants and Central have identified service areas that will be operated by Central as a regional affiliate of Greyhound, instead of as presently operated by Greyhound. (
Applicants state that this transaction may result in additional fixed costs to the extent that Central borrows funds to finance a portion of equipment acquisition over time. (
Based on their representations, the Board finds that Applicants' continuance in control of Central is consistent with the public interest. The application will be tentatively approved and authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated, and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available at
1. Applicants' continuance in control of Central upon it becoming a federally regulated passenger motor carrier is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed vacated.
3. This notice will be effective on October 27, 2026, unless opposing comments are filed by October 26, 2026. If any comments are filed, Applicants may file a reply by November 9, 2026.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Kloster, and Schultz.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by October 13, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicholas DeLotell by email at:
This information collection specifically facilitates work and training arrangements with foreign counterparts, ICAO and its subsidiary organizations, other international organizations and fora, and with private entities around the world; it identifies opportunities and unexpected changes; and it ultimately contributes to the fulfillment of the FAA's mission to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Foreign affairs specialists assigned to the FAA Office of International Affairs will collect information from respondents (foreign counterparts, ICAO and its subsidiary organizations, other international organizations and fora, or from private foreign entities) verbally, in-person or telephonically, or in writing via letter, email, or other electronic means.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; correction.
The FHWA is correcting the notice, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection,” published in the
Melissa Maiefski,
FHWA is correcting the notice published in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from seven individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2026-0045 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2026-0045), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The seven individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Teresa Collingwood is a 55-year-old regular driver's license holder in Indiana. She has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since April 2022. She takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 2022. Her physician states that they are supportive of her receiving an exemption.
Candice Evans is a 44-year-old class A commercial driver license (CDL) holder
Kristopher Ficks is a 38-year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since April 26, 2024. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 26, 2024. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Dwight MacVane, Jr. is a 60-year-old class A CDL holder in Maine. He has a history of focal epilepsy and has been seizure free since October 17, 2019. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since February 29, 2020. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Parker Ormsby is a 23-year-old class O license holder in Michigan. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since December 2018. He discontinued all anti-seizure medication in Spring of 2023. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Cody Robertson is a 44-year-old class A3 CDL holder in South Dakota. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since November 2023. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 2025. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
Enrique Rosales, IV is a 38-year-old class D license holder in New Mexico. He has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since November 2019. He takes an anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since November 2019. His physician states that they are supportive of him receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption applications described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for nine individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on September 16, 2026. The exemptions expire on September 16, 2028. Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0109, FMCSA-2022-0044, FMCSA-2024-0019, FMCSA-2024-0022, or FMCSA-2024-0024, as appropriate, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2013-0109, FMCSA-2022-0044, FMCSA-2024-0019, FMCSA-2024-0022, or FMCSA-2024-0024), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (MEs) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The nine individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if the person has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, or if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of Title 49, chapter 313 or section 31136, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the nine applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The nine drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September and are discussed below.
As of September 16, 2026, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0109, FMCSA-2022-0044, FMCSA-2024-0019, FMCSA-2024-0022, or FMCSA-2024-0024. Their exemptions are applicable as of September 16, 2026, and will expire on September 16, 2028.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure or change in treatment regimen, during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to their employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local law enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements.
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the nine exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of Title 49, chapter 313 or section 31136.
Maritime Administration (MARAD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
MARAD invites public comments on its intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0505 (Application to Participate in the Voluntary Tanker Agreement) is used to determine capacity commitments by participants in the event the Agreement is activated to meet the essential need for the transportation of petroleum and petroleum products in bulk by sea. Minor changes are being made to the form for this collection to improve clarity and ensure consistency with program operations. MARAD is required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before November 9, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2026-1454 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Richard Wanerman, 202-366-2306, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, MAR-620.2, Mail Stop 1, Washington, DC 20590,
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for reinstatement with modification of a previously approved information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval for reinstatement, with modification, of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) requirements under 49 CFR 575.104.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Mr. Walter Lysenko (
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
1. Grade tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance;
2. Mold the assigned grades into the tire sidewall;
3. Affix a paper tread label to new replacement tires that includes the grades and an explanation of the grading system;
4. Provide prospective purchasers, at each point of sale, access to grading information for each tire offered for sale;
5. Ensure that vehicle manufacturers include the applicable grade information in the owner's manual for vehicles equipped with graded tires; and
6. Submit grading information to NHTSA for public compilation and dissemination.
NHTSA compiles grading information for all manufacturers' tire lines and makes the information available to the public by publication on NHTSA's website. The information collection ensures that consumers can readily compare tire quality across brands and tire lines and supports NHTSA's program administration and enforcement activities.
NHTSA estimates total annual non-labor respondent costs of approximately $35.1 million, primarily attributable to testing, printing of paper tread labels, and printing of consumer information brochures. The largest portion of the cost burden imposed by the UTQGS program arises from the testing necessary to determine the grades that should be assigned to the tires. The cost burden is broken into its components as follows.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of administrative determination of preemption.
The Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5101
Samantha Vrscak, Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone No. 202-366-4400; Facsimile No. 202-366-7041.
Worthington Enterprises, Inc. (Worthington) applied for a determination as to whether the HMTA, 49 U.S.C. 5101
Worthington designs and manufactures certain non-reusable and non-refillable propane cylinders that are subject to the California reusability mandate. These cylinders are also subject to the requirements in the HMR for specification 39 non-reusable (non-refillable) cylinders (DOT-39 cylinders).
Citing the Federal preemption provision in the HMTA, Worthington filed an application on August 18, 2025 asking PHMSA to issue an administrative determination that the California reusability mandate is unlawful for two reasons: (1) because it is not substantively the same as Federal regulations governing the design, manufacture, and maintenance of cylinders used in transportation of hazardous materials; and (2) because it is an obstacle to the Federal hazardous material transportation legal and regulatory regime.
PHMSA published notice of Worthington's application in the
The HMTA contains an express preemption provision in 49 U.S.C. 5125. That provision is intended to ensure uniformity in the regulation of hazardous materials transportation.
Section 5125(a) provides that a requirement of a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe is preempted—unless the non-Federal requirement is authorized by another Federal law or the U.S Department of Transportation (Department or DOT) grants a waiver of preemption under Section 5125(e)—if:
(1) complying with a requirement of the State, political subdivision, or tribe and a requirement of this chapter, a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous materials transportation security regulation or directive issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security is not possible; or
(2) the requirement of the State, political subdivision, or tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out this chapter, a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous materials transportation security regulation or directive issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Section 5125(b)(1) further provides that a non-Federal requirement concerning any of the following subjects is preempted—unless authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of preemption—when the non-Federal requirement is not “substantively the same” as a provision of Federal hazardous material transportation law, a regulation prescribed under that law, or a hazardous materials security regulation or directive issued by the Department of Homeland Security:
(A) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous material.
(B) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material.
(C) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents.
(D) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material and other written hazardous materials transportation incident reporting involving State or local emergency responders in the initial response to the incident.
(E) the designing, manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting, marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or testing a package, container, or packaging component that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce.
The HMTA allows any person (including a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe) directly affected by a requirement of a State, political subdivision or Indian tribe to apply to the Secretary of Transportation for an administrative preemption determination.
Section 5125(d)(1) requires the Secretary to publish notice of an application for a preemption determination in the
In making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), PHMSA is guided by the principles and policies set forth in Executive Order No. 13132 (E.O. 13132) and the President's May 20, 2009 Memorandum on Preemption.
As enacted by Section 42395.1 of the California Public Resources Code, “[o]n or after January 1, 2028, only reusable or refillable propane cylinders shall be sold or offered for sale in [California].”
For the purposes of this chapter, “reusable” or “refillable” or “reuse” or “refill,” in regard to propane cylinders means a cylinder that satisfies all of the following:
(1) Explicitly designed and marketed to be utilized multiple times for the same product.
(2) Designed for durability to function properly in its original condition for multiple uses.
(3) Supported by adequate infrastructure to ensure the cylinders can be conveniently and safety reused for multiple cycles.
Section 42395(b) further states that “[f]or the purposes of this chapter, `propane cylinder' does not include any of the following:
(1) Cylinders that are customarily designed for use in the construction industry and when full, contain less than 15 ounces of fuel, whether filled solely with propane or not.
(2) Cylinders that have an overall product height-to-width of 3.55 to 1 or greater.
(3) Cylinders that are offered to a State or local government purchasing agency pursuant to the United States General Services Administration's State and Local Disaster Purchasing Program, or a successor program.
The State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is required to “adopt regulations to implement [the law] with an effective date of January 1, 2028.”
PHMSA received a total of seventeen comments responding to Worthington's application for an administrative preemption determination on the California reusability mandate for propane cylinders. Nine commenters expressed their support for the application, and eight commenters expressed their opposition. Additional information about the comments is provided below.
Nearly all commenters in favor of preemption argue that California's reusability mandate for propane cylinders obstructs the purpose of the HMTA. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), a national trade organization representing the propane industry, states that the California reusability mandate would disrupt national uniformity and undermine safety.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., a producer of flat-rolled steel in North America and a supplier of steel used by U.S. manufacturers of non-reusable propane cylinders, argues that the California reusability mandate undermines national standards for the use and regulation of propane cylinders that have been established through industry guidance and practice.
A group of nonprofit organizations dedicated to wildlife conservation (collectively known as Wildlife Conservation Organizations) argue that DOT-39 propane cylinders are the national standard “because they are safe, convenient, and affordable,” particularly for outdoor recreationists.
The Attorneys General of Kansas and Ohio argue that “[t]he [HMTA] ensures safe packaging and transportation of hazardous materials.”
The Attorneys General of Kansas and Ohio argue that the California reusability mandate must be preempted because it is about the designing and manufacturing of propane cylinders and requires that the cylinders at issue be designed and manufactured to California's specifications,
Several commenters argue that the California reusability mandate would impose unreasonable economic burdens on commerce. In a joint comment, the State Attorneys General of Kansas and Ohio note that single-use cylinders have been manufactured in Kansas for decades and that Ohio-based Worthington Enterprises is the only American manufacturer of DOT-39 cylinders.
Cleveland-Cliffs notes that the current market for non-reusable propane cylinders is served entirely by domestically produced steel, whereas refillable cylinders are currently made overseas with foreign materials, raising both economic and safety concerns.
Most of the comments opposing preemption emphasize that the California reusability mandate relates to waste management and public safety, matters falling within the reach of the State's traditional police powers. Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), an advocacy organization focused on the advancement of solid waste management to resource management, argues that the reusability requirement advances waste management worker and facility safety and reduces the amount of waste and disposal costs associated with single-use cylinders.
The California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) and Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), in a joint comment, argue that the California reusability mandate is a waste management law that falls within the State's traditional police powers.
The majority of commenters opposing preemption argue that the California reusability mandate does not present an obstacle to carrying out the HMTA. SWANA argues California's reusability requirement is not an obstacle so long as the refillable cylinders meet DOT standards.
CPSC and RCRC argue that the California reusability mandate does not create an obstacle to Federal laws regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, specifying that the law does not prohibit propane use, does not interfere with Federal transportation or handling requirements, and does not require the redesign of cylinders already compliant with Federal law.
The majority of the commenters opposed to preemption also argue that the California reusability mandate does not pertain to a covered subject and therefore is not required to be “substantively the same as” a provision of the HMTA or the HMR. SWANA claims that the “substantively the same” provision relates to transportation, and that the California reusability mandate “does not speak to the transportation of . . . cylinders.”
SWA further argues California's law is not preempted because propane cylinders are not a “packaging” under the HMR.
CPSC and RCRC argue that the California reusability mandate does not make compliance with both State and Federal law impossible, and noted that reusable DOT 4BA cylinders would be permitted.
The rebuttal comments in favor of preemption largely echo those submitted during the initial comment period. In a joint letter, Representatives Troy Balderson, Ron Estes, and Tony Wied express concern that the California reusability mandate threatens manufacturing jobs in their States and argue that domestic manufacturers of cylinders rely on a uniform regulatory framework to produce safe cylinders.
California Grocers Association (CGA), a nonprofit statewide trade association for the grocery and retail industry in California, agrees that the California reusability mandate is an obstacle to maintaining compliance with a uniform scheme of Federal regulation meant to promote safety and will impose an unreasonable burden on commerce.
James Hunter Poole, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Obelisk Tech Systems, Inc., argues the California reusability mandate should be preempted on economic grounds because imposing disproportionate burdens on small propane cylinder manufacturers as well as consumers in rural households, who rely on single-use propane cylinders as a primary emergency energy source in natural disasters.
Worthington, in its rebuttal, agrees with commenters expressing support for preemption and argues that those comments confirm that preemption is both legally appropriate and in the public interest by ensuring the free flow of commerce, preserving jobs, advancing safety, and protecting consumer choice and affordability.
Worthington reiterates that the HMTA preempts California's non-reusable cylinder ban because it pertains to an enumerated subject matter in 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1) and 49 CFR 107.202(a)(5)—specifically, the designing, manufacturing, fabricating, etc. of a packaging, container, or packaging component—and is not substantively the same as the Federal requirements.
Worthington further argues that HMTA preemption is not limited to outer “packaging,” as suggested by some of the commenters, because it is about the design or manufacture of a package, container, or packaging component used for transporting hazmat, and that DOT-39 cylinders are containers with specific regulatory requirements.
Worthington emphasizes that California's reusability mandate creates an obstacle to the HMTA and HMR's objectives to “promote uniformity of hazmat regulation, safety, and cost-effective commerce.”
Worthington notes consumers have expressed discomfort with refillable options, citing to a presentation at the 2025 U.S. Product Stewardship Forum in which Little Kamper, a company operating a cylinder exchange program, reported at most a 60 percent exchange rate at their best performing retail location.
The rebuttal comments opposed to preemption mostly reiterate points made during the initial comment period. Californians Against Waste (CAW), a statewide nonprofit organization representing local governments, waste management professionals and recyclers, and environmental advocates, emphasizes that the reusability mandate is a waste prevention and product stewardship statute that falls within California's traditional police powers.
Billy Puk, a former hazmat and waste regulator and an illegal waste dumping investigator in California, similarly argues that it is within California's traditional police powers to manage waste and public safety.
The Attorney General of California, in rebuttal, argues the California reusability mandate protects public safety, particularly workers in municipal waste and recycling facilities from the dangers of improperly disposed propane cylinders, and thus falls within California's traditional police powers and is entitled to a presumption against preemption.
The California Attorney General rejects the contention that the reusability mandate is not substantively the same as comparable Federal requirements.
The California Attorney General further argues there is no preemption under the obstacle test because the reusability mandate does not present an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the HMTA or the HMR.
PHMSA finds that California's reusability mandate for propane cylinders is preempted. The mandate concerns the “designing, manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting, marking, [or] maintaining” of a packaging or container used in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce and is not “substantively the same” as the Federal regulations. In addition, California's reusability mandate is also an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the HMTA and the HMR. Accordingly, the reusability mandate is preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(a)(2) and (b)(1)(E).
Section 5125(b)(1) generally provides that a non-Federal requirement concerning certain covered subjects is preempted if that non-Federal requirement is not “substantively the same” as a regulation prescribed in the HMR.
At to the first issue, the California reusability mandate clearly relates to a covered subject. The HMR prescribes detailed requirements for the design and manufacture of specification cylinders generally and DOT-39 specification cylinders specifically.
Of particular significance for the issues presented here, the HMR expressly authorizes DOT-39 cylinders to be designed, manufactured, and fabricated as non-reusable (non-refillable) propane cylinders. That is confirmed by the general requirements in the HMR for specification cylinders, which have a specific provision for inspecting non-refillable cylinders,
As to the second issue, the California reusability mandate clearly imposes requirements that are not substantively the same as the HMR. The HMR expressly authorizes the design, manufacture, and fabrication of non-refillable (non-reusable) cylinders as packagings or containers qualified for use in transporting propane in commerce. The HMR also expressly forbids the use in transportation of DOT-39 cylinders that are refilled with propane. The California reusability mandate is not substantively the same as these requirements; indeed, it is in direct conflict with them. Further, the mandate imposes additional inspection, marking, and maintenance requirements, given that DOT-39 cylinder have different inspection and marking requirements from refillable cylinders, and reusable cylinders must be requalified at specific intervals for continued use.
The contrary arguments presented by the commenters are unpersuasive. As a threshold matter, the preemption provision in the HMTA is not limited to State requirements directly relating to the transportation of packagings or containers for hazardous materials. The provision applies to a packaging or container qualified for the use in transporting hazardous materials, regardless of whether it is in “transportation.”
Section 5125(b)(1) of the HMTA is an express preemption clause “because it `expressly directs that State law be ousted' if certain conditions are satisfied.”
California's Attorney General asserts that the reusability requirement for propane cylinders is substantively the same as the HMR, specifying that the HMR does not prohibit the design of refillable or reusable cylinders, and that other DOT specification cylinders that are refillable or reusable, such as DOT 4BA cylinders, have been authorized for transporting propane. PHMSA disagrees with this assertion. While the HMR does permit the design of refillable or reusable cylinders, it also expressly permits single-use, non-refillable cylinders. California seeks to impose design and manufacturing requirements, namely that they must be reusable and refillable, for all propane cylinders offered for sale with few exceptions, which is not substantively the same as the HMR. On its face, California's mandate may only reasonably be interpreted to impose design and manufacturing requirements on packagings or containers, particularly, DOT-39 cylinders, that are qualified for use in transporting hazmat in commerce.
In conclusion, a non-Federal requirement is not “substantively the same” unless it “conforms in every significant aspect to the Federal requirement.”
Section 5125(a)(2) generally provides that a non-Federal requirement is preempted if complying with that requirement “is an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out” the HMTA or “a regulation prescribed under” the HMTA.
In enacting the HMTA, Congress made findings relating to the transportation of hazardous materials and the importance of uniform regulations governing hazmat transportation.
As previously noted, a non-Federal requirement is preempted if it is an obstacle to accomplishing the “goals and purposes” of the HMTA.
PHMSA has prescribed extensive regulations governing the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including propane, as well as the specifications of packagings authorized for use in the transportation of propane, along with requirements for the safe use and maintenance of those packagings. Each type of cylinder authorized for hazmat transportation has specific design, manufacturing, testing, and maintenance requirements that ensure it is safe for use, including DOT-39 cylinders. Specification 39 cylinders are subject to strict manufacturing standards and must undergo rigorous testing in order to be qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials.
Accordingly, California's reusability mandate for propane cylinders undermines the HMTA's goal and purpose of uniformity and is the type of patchwork State requirement Congress
More importantly, California's reusability mandate would more than likely have the unintended effect of creating additional safety hazards for consumers, further frustrating the intent of the HMTA and HMR. Filling cylinders with propane, a flammable gas, poses a safety risk, and that risk is increased if untrained consumers attempt to refill these propane cylinders themselves. The refillable cylinders, such as the DOT 4BA cylinders, touted by those opposed to preemption must also be inspected and retested at regular intervals to qualify for reuse.
For these reasons, PHMSA finds California's reusability mandate for most propane cylinders is an obstacle to carrying out the HMTA and HMR's goal of uniformity in the regulation of hazardous materials and impedes the transportation of hazardous materials. The mandate is therefore preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(a)(2).
PHMSA finds that California's reusability mandate for propane cylinders is a non-Federal requirement relating to a covered subject that is not substantively the same as the requirements in the HMR. PHMSA further finds that California's reusability mandate is an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the HMTA and HMR. Accordingly, California's reusability mandate for propane cylinders is preempted under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(E) and (a)(2).
In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(a), any person aggrieved by this determination may file a petition for reconsideration. The petition for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of publication of this determination in the
If a person does not request reconsideration in a timely fashion, then this determination is PHMSA's final agency action as to that person, as of the date of publication in the
Any person who is adversely affected or aggrieved by this administrative determination may seek judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 5127(a) by filing a petition for review in an appropriate United States Court of Appeals within 60 days after publication of this determination in the
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in New York, NY or virtually via Microsoft Teams. The entire meeting will be closed.
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be held September 16, 2026.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway—Foley Square New York, NY 10007-1823 or virtually via
Valeria B. Farr, 1835 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201. Telephone (803) 312-7828 (not a toll-free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009, that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 290 Broadway—Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 or virtually via
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by October 13, 2026.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA Form 10-2850d is used to collect appropriate information to support the qualifications for each trainee participating in accredited educational programs with VA. Trainee applicants participating in accredited educational programs must complete and submit the 10-2850d form.
VA Form 10-2850e is the pre-employment reference form used to elicit information concerning the prior education and/or performance of the Title 38 trainee applicant. The information provided is used to determine if the applicant meets the requirements for employment. VA sends the 10-2850e form to the educational institutions, organizations, and individuals indicated by the applicant on the employment application form.
The forms have been updated with required PRA language. There is a decrease in the total estimated number of responses and burden hours for this collection based upon program data since the last PRA clearance, including the discontinuance and removal of three forms. This information collection is only for VA health position trainee applicants.
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
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by October 13, 2026.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
To demonstrate that a veteran meets the definition of Indian or urban Indian, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 1603(13) or (28), VA may ask the veteran to submit documentation to VA. The veteran should use VA Form 10-334 as a cover sheet for submission of documentation requested by VA. There is a decrease in the estimated annual respondents and burden hours based upon data since the last PRA clearance.
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
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish a notice in the
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VA is introducing two new forms for this collection—VA Form 10-488 will be used by Veterans and VA Form 10-489 will be used by providers to register for direct deposit payment/reimbursement for foreign medical services. VA Form 10-7959f-1 is discontinued and removed from this collection because 10-488 replaces it as the registration form for Veterans. VA Form 10-7959f-2 will continue to be used as a cover sheet for submitting claims to FMP. The 10-7959f-2 form streamlines the claims submission process for claimants and providers while also reducing the time spent by VA on processing FMP claims.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rule; rescission.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) is proposing to rescind the political contribution rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), which prohibits investment advisers from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after an adviser or any covered associate of the adviser makes a contribution to certain categories of elected officials or candidates, among other prohibitions. In the more than fifteen years since the rule was adopted, implementation challenges associated with the political contribution rule have resulted in a range of significant unintended consequences, including compliance practices among some investment advisers that may have had the effect of restricting all political contributions by the investment advisers and their employees. Market participants also have stated that the political contribution rule is burdensome, complex, and both lacks clarity and creates a
This proposal 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 www.
A summary of the proposal of not more than 100 words is posted on the Commission's website (
Janet Jun, Lawrence Pace, and Mark Stewart, Senior Counsels, Sirimal R. Mukerjee, Senior Special Counsel, or Robert Holowka, Assistant Director, Investment Adviser Regulation Office, at (202) 551-6787, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.
The Commission is proposing to rescind 17 CFR 275.206(4)-5 (“rule 206(4)-5” or the “political contribution rule”) and make related amendments to 17 CFR 275.204-2 (“rule 204-2” or the “recordkeeping rule”) under the Advisers Act.
Investment advisers play a vital role in helping governments responsibly manage public funds and honor commitments to their taxpayers, public-sector employees and retirees, and retirement benefit plan participants. In 2010, the Commission adopted the political contribution rule with respect to investment advisers, which was intended to reduce the possibility that
We propose to rescind the political contribution rule in its entirety based on our experience administering the rule since its adoption (informed by feedback from market participants), including our observations that the rule:
• Has led to significant unintended consequences, including prohibitions by some investment advisers on any and all political contributions made by the investment adviser and its employees at the State and local level, which affects core political speech protected by the First Amendment;
• Is operationally challenging for investment advisers to implement;
• May impose significant burdens that may not be justified by its benefits; and
• Lacks clarity and creates a
We are of the view that rescinding the current rule in its entirety and instead relying on other existing requirements of the Advisers Act and associated rules, including prohibitions on fraud, fiduciary duty requirements, 17 CFR 275.206(4)-7 (“rule 206(4)-7” or the “compliance rule”), and 17 CFR 275.204A-1 (“rule 204A-1” or the “code of ethics rule”), as well as other existing Federal, State and local requirements, could avoid many of the issues and unintended consequences associated with the political contribution rule and lead to more appropriate measures by investment advisers to address pay-to-play practices. In addition, our experience with the current rule has underscored the inherent difficulty of designing specific objective criteria for a rule expressly designed to address pay-to-play practices without unintended adverse effects on investment adviser contributions, employee hiring, investment advisory services, and political speech, as well as overall significant compliance burdens that may not be justified by the benefits.
We therefore are of the view that rescinding the political contribution rule and permitting investment advisers to address their pay-to-play risks in a principles-based manner consistent with other existing obligations under the Advisers Act would be appropriate. That is, other existing requirements of the Advisers Act and its associated rules operate to require investment advisers to address pay-to-play practices, but with the flexibility to design tailored compliance policies and procedures and codes of ethics in accordance with their own business models and risk profiles.
A rescission of the Commission's political contribution rule would not curtail any other existing criminal and civil laws against public sector corruption. Other Federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the public procurement process (including the awarding of investment advisory mandates) exist independently of the political contribution rule and would not be limited or otherwise impacted by its rescission.
Similarly, the Commission's ability to bring cases against investment advisers for fraudulent practices and violations of fiduciary duty for engaging in pay-to-play practices would remain unchanged. Investment advisers' fiduciary duty obligations and the broad anti-fraud provisions under the Federal securities laws would continue to apply following the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule.
State and local government assets, including nearly $6 trillion of public pension plan assets,
Contributions made to a candidate for political office are a form of speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and the prevention of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance is the only permissible ground for restricting or limiting such speech.
• Political contributions influence the selection of an adviser to provide investment advisory services to State and local governments, including by constituting a prerequisite to competing for an advisory role; or
• Investment advisers seek to influence an elected official's award of advisory contracts by making or soliciting contributions to that official.
Contributions made pursuant to a pay-to-play arrangement may take a variety of forms, including an adviser's direct contributions to government officials, contributions to an election committee for government officials, solicitation of third parties to make contributions or payments to government officials or political parties in the State or locality where an adviser seeks to provide services, and payments to third parties to solicit government business.
When contributions influence the award of these advisory roles, including by constituting a prerequisite to competing for an advisory role, the process by which government officials select investment advisers can be
Pay-to-play practices therefore are inconsistent with an adviser's role as a fiduciary under the Advisers Act and constitute fraud under the Federal securities laws.
In 2010, the Commission adopted the political contribution rule.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition to the political contribution rule, the recordkeeping rule includes several provisions that require registered investment advisers to make and keep certain books and records relating to compliance with the political contribution rule in order to aid the Commission in examining for compliance with it.
Since the Commission adopted the political contribution rule in 2010, we have observed numerous challenges associated with the rule's complexity and how broadly investment advisers have applied the rule. Market participants
• The monetary losses associated with the two-year ban on receiving compensation for providing investment advisory services to a government client seem excessive, particularly given that the ban can be triggered by contributions of as little as $150.
• The two-year ban on compensation (which is automatically triggered by the underlying contribution) creates a
• Advisers may be prevented from hiring or promoting qualified individuals into roles where they would be considered a “covered associate” for either six months or two years following an individual's contribution, despite the contribution potentially having an attenuated relationship or no relationship to pay-to-play practices. Whether the time period is two years or six months depends on whether the person who becomes a covered associate solicits clients on behalf of the investment adviser; if the employee does not solicit clients, the shorter six-month time period applies.
• Public pension plans may be unable to hire the most qualified or cost-effective advisers or may ultimately lose the services of an existing adviser with institutional knowledge of the public pension plan's investment strategy and composition because of contributions by the adviser's covered associates during the two-year lookback period that do not present a material risk of engaging in a pay-to-play practice.
• It can be difficult for an adviser to identify which persons fall within the definition of an “official” who is “indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of an investment adviser by a government entity.”
• The definition of “covered associate” can be difficult to interpret and may have been applied more broadly than intended, with employees whose contributions are unlikely to be related to pay-to-play practices being subjected to restrictive policies. For example, the definition of covered associate can equate to a significant number of employees and be difficult to apply because the definition's supervisory prong picks up adviser personnel that “supervises, directly or indirectly,” an employee who solicits a government entity for an investment adviser and it can be difficult to determine whether an individual “indirectly” supervises an employee who solicits government entities.
• The dollar amounts in the
• The exception for returned contributions requires that the contributor obtain the return of a contribution within 60 calendar days of the date of discovery of such contribution by the investment adviser, which means that advisers must rely on the third party that received the contribution to satisfy the exception; this may not be feasible if the funds have been spent.
• The exemptive process through which the Commission may, upon application, conditionally or unconditionally exempt an investment adviser from the prohibitions of the rule may be costly and time-consuming to pursue.
Due to such interpretive difficulties and related operational and implementation challenges, the political contribution rule has resulted in significant unintended consequences. For example, the rule's substantial consequence for a contribution (a two-year ban on compensation) and its potential to scope in activities that carry a relatively low risk of leading to pay-to-play practices may result—and often has resulted—in an adviser prohibiting contributions outright, which may chill political speech protected by the First Amendment that does not lead even to the appearance of corruption. As another example, and as discussed above, we have observed that advisers have been prevented from hiring or promoting qualified managers because of past contributions by such individuals that may in fact pose little if any risk of constituting pay-to-play practices.
Additionally, because the specific objective criteria of the rule apply to an adviser regardless of its pay-to-play risk profile—including conditions whose application may prove onerous or inappropriate for a low risk adviser—and pay-to-play considerations can be unique to each adviser, an adviser with a lower pay-to-play risk profile may nonetheless be required to design and implement compliance policies and procedures which result in unintended adverse effects that may not be justified by its risk of engaging in pay-to-play practices.
More than fifteen years of complying with the political contribution rule have provided existing investment advisers with experience in understanding a complicated political contribution landscape, assessing whether and how contributions have the potential to
For example, a Rhode Island law requires a State vendor that has entered into a contract costing $5,000 or more with a State agency to execute and file an affidavit if it has also contributed over $250 in a calendar year to any general officer, candidate for general office, general assembly member, general assembly candidate, or political party within the 24 months preceding the date of the contract.
Furthermore, investment advisers and their employees in certain cases also must comply with other Federal laws that establish criminal or civil penalties for bribery or fraudulent
We propose to rescind rule 206(4)-5 in its entirety. The political contribution rule takes a prescriptive approach to deterring pay-to-play practices that, based on our experience administering the rule and feedback from market participants:
• Creates operational challenges for investment advisers to implement due to the rule's complexity and the breadth of its application;
• Captures activity that may not warrant a two-year compensation ban;
• Imposes significant burdens that may not be justified in connection with what the rule is designed to prevent (including preventing advisers from hiring or promoting qualified personnel due to past contributions that do not present a material risk of engaging in a pay-to-play practice); and
• Results in advisers prohibiting contributions outright, which affects core political speech protected by the First Amendment.
In view of the challenges we have observed that have resulted from the political contribution rule, we are of the view that its goals may be better achieved through a principles-based approach to prevent fraud and that other existing laws and regulations (including the compliance rule and the code of ethics rule) provide a sufficient framework to support such an approach. Accordingly, we propose to rescind the political contribution rule in its entirety.
As a fundamental matter (and separate and apart from the political contribution rule), investment advisers engaging in pay-to-play practices violate the U.S. securities laws, including the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act. In upholding this long-established principle, the Commission has brought numerous enforcement actions under the antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act, as well as other Federal securities laws, involving pay-to-play practices.
Specifically, section 206 of the Advisers Act establishes Federal fiduciary standards that govern the conduct of investment advisers.
Pay-to-play practices are prohibited by the Advisers Act and may violate other Federal securities laws (for example, certain enforcement actions have also been brought under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933).
Pay-to-play practices also involve conflicts of interest. Public pension plan beneficiaries are harmed when a government official violates the public trust, for example, by failing to disclose that the government official has directed the investment of the plan's assets into a pooled investment vehicle not because of the adviser's qualifications or competency or the vehicle's financial merits but rather because the official has received a contribution. By engaging in such conduct with the government official, the adviser creates a conflict of interest with the plan and engages in a scheme to defraud the government plan or program. Additionally, an adviser to a pooled investment vehicle that is an investment option in a government plan or program may prepare information about the pooled investment vehicle that may be used by plan officials to evaluate the vehicle and by pension plan beneficiaries to decide whether to allocate assets to the vehicle. Such an adviser engages in or facilitates an act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative when the adviser does not disclose that it made a contribution that induces government officials to make an investment and that the government officials sponsoring the plan chose the vehicle as an investment option for beneficiaries not solely on the basis of its merits, but rather as the consequence of improper
In addition to substantive securities law provisions that prohibit pay-to-play practices, a registered investment adviser already is subject to other existing Advisers Act requirements that, in our view and given the experiences described above with the political contribution rule, establish a sufficient principles-based framework through which advisers commonly prophylactically address its risk of engaging in pay-to-play practices. For example, the compliance rule requires investment advisers to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder, and to review, no less frequently than annually, the adequacy of those policies and procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation.
Advisers have for over twenty years implemented systems of controls to comply with rule 206(4)-7 that help protect the interests of clients while being tailored to advisers' particular businesses. The compliance rule relates to a variety of investment adviser compliance activities because it requires written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder. For example, the Commission has stated that it expects that an adviser's compliance rule policies and procedures, at a minimum, should address certain areas to the extent that they are relevant to that adviser.
In addition to the Advisers Act prohibitions on fraud, fiduciary duty requirements, and the compliance rule, a registered investment adviser is also required to adopt a code of ethics under the code of ethics rule. The rule requires that the code of ethics, in part, set forth the standard of business conduct that the adviser requires of all of its supervised persons, and the standard chosen must reflect the adviser's fiduciary obligations and those of its supervised persons, and must require compliance with Federal securities laws.
Providing an adviser additional flexibility to adapt its policies and procedures and code of ethics to its specific business and risks instead of basing them on the specific prescriptive requirements of the political contribution rule would permit the adviser to address its pay-to-play risks more holistically consistent with its obligations under the Advisers Act. It would, at the same time, allow the adviser to better balance its individual pay-to-play risk and the burden associated with mitigating such risk relative to what we have observed under the political contribution rule. Furthermore, to the extent that the compliance costs of mitigating risk under the political contribution rule exceed the compliance costs an adviser would bear if it determines to adjust its code of ethics and compliance policies and procedures to address its particular pay-to-play risks, these cost savings may ultimately benefit the adviser's public pension plan clients and potentially other clients as well (
Finally, the rescission of the political contribution rule will allow advisers and their personnel greater freedom to make political contributions and to exercise their constitutional right to political speech. The First Amendment's protection of free speech has its “ `fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.' ”
The proposal to rescind the political contribution rule could also lead to increased competition for public pension plan investment mandates.
While the compliance rule and the code of ethics rule apply only to investment advisers registered or required to be registered under section 203 of the Advisers Act (unlike the political contribution rule, which applies to exempt reporting advisers and foreign private advisers as well as registered investment advisers), we understand that registered investment advisers manage a significant amount of public pension plan assets or other public funds and, therefore, represent the highest risk of engaging in pay-to-play practices.
We acknowledge that, before adopting the political contribution rule, the Commission previously discussed policies and procedures as being insufficient for preventing pay-to-play practices. In adopting the political contribution rule, the Commission stated that (1) codes of ethics or compliance procedures alone may not be adequate to stop pay-to-play practices;
The rescission of the political contribution rule in its entirety would also result in the rescission of the prohibition under the current rule on an adviser from paying a third party that is not a “regulated person” (
By rescinding the political contribution rule, we would better enable advisers who provide or seek to provide investment advisory services to State or local governments to tailor their compliance policies and procedures and the standard of business conduct contained in their code of ethics to address their particular pay-to-play risks. The compliance rule does not enumerate specific elements that an adviser must include in its policies and procedures.
If the political contribution rule is ultimately rescinded, some investment advisers who provide or seek to provide investment advisory services to State or local governments may determine, after assessing their pay-to-play risks, to update their compliance policies and procedures to replace policies and procedures that were established pursuant to the prescriptive nature of the political contribution rule with policies and procedures that are tailored to address the risks of pay-to-play practices to their organization. Other investment advisers, however, may determine, after assessing their pay-to-play risks, to maintain policies and procedures established pursuant to the political contribution rule as a component of their compliance policies and procedures addressing the risks of pay-to-play practices to their organization.
Following any rescission of the political contribution rule, to the extent an adviser provides or seeks to provide investment advisory services to State or local governments and determines to update its compliance policies and procedures, identifying factors creating pay-to-play risk exposure particular to the adviser and its clients in light of its particular business needs, organizational structure, and the exact nature of its business, would be relevant to making this update. Leveraging the compliance framework that it already has in place, such adviser would then design and implement policies and procedures that address those risks and tailor them as appropriate to reflect the adviser's unique characteristics that are relevant to preventing pay-to-play practices.
Below are several factors to consider in completing this assessment, and the extent to which any of these considerations apply would depend on the individual facts and circumstances and pay-to-play risks of each adviser:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Likewise, the code of ethics rule does not require an adviser to adopt a particular standard of business conduct. Instead, it requires that the standard an adviser chooses reflect its fiduciary obligations and those of its supervised persons and require compliance with the Federal securities laws.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposal to rescind the political contribution rule, including the following:
1. Should the Commission rescind rule 206(4)-5 in its entirety, as proposed? Why or why not?
2. Do commenters agree with our observation that the political contribution rule has generally resulted in unintended consequences and a broader application of the rule than intended such as some advisers' policies and procedures outright prohibiting political contributions altogether? Do commenters believe that the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule would encourage more political speech by way of increased political contributions in circumstances that do not generate pay-to-play risk?
3. Does the political contribution rule raise significant questions under the First Amendment?
4. Would an adviser's policies and procedures adopted under the compliance rule be a more appropriate means of addressing the risks associated with pay-to-play practices? Would such an approach reduce burdens for the adviser relative to the burdens incurred with compliance with rule 206(4)-5 or otherwise avoid the challenges associated with the current rule? Would an adviser's adoption of a standard of business conduct under the code of ethics rule that addresses an adviser's particular pay-to-play risks help prevent fraudulent pay-to-play conduct?
5. If the political contribution rule is rescinded, would other existing requirements under the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder sufficiently address pay-to-play practices? Would rescinding the political contribution rule increase the likelihood of pay-to-play practices? Why or why not? If so, would keeping the rule or adopting some other alternative be preferable?
6. Should the Commission amend the political contribution rule to provide for some specific standards within a more principles-based framework? If so, describe what framework should be provided. For example, would an amended, more principles-based rule under the Advisers Act specific to pay-to-play practices help an adviser develop policies and procedures and codes of ethics sufficiently robust to prevent pay-to-play practices (
7. Should the Commission amend the rule to require an adviser to adopt and implement policies and procedures tailored to its pay-to-play risks taking into account its particular business, but also prescribe certain elements in the policies and procedures? If so, what elements and why? For instance, should any such policies and procedures be required to expressly include (1) a risk identification and assessment element that would require an adviser to identify and assess the adviser's or its covered personnel's risk of making contributions to officials of government entities that could result in the award or retention of investment advisory services or the decision to invest or maintain an investment in an investment pool advised by the investment adviser; (2) a political contributions guidelines element that would require an adviser to establish firm-wide guidelines that would identify covered personnel and certain prohibited conduct and establish contribution limits and protocols with respect to contributions (
8. As an alternative to the proposed rescission, should the Commission instead modify specific provisions of the political contribution rule? If so, which provisions and why? For example, should the Commission modify (1) the
9. Should the Commission further clarify application of the compliance rule with respect to pay-to-pay practices, or otherwise provide additional guidance to assist advisers in updating and tailoring their policies and procedures and codes of ethics if the political contribution rule is rescinded as proposed? If so, what clarification or guidance would be helpful?
10. Should the Commission adopt enhanced disclosure obligations (
11. Do State and local pay-to-play requirements as well as any anti-bribery and other applicable laws and regulations including Federal laws and regulations regarding the procurement process (while not all targeted at investment advisers specifically and not consistent across or present in all jurisdictions) diminish the need for rule 206(4)-5? Why or why not? Alternatively, is having a Federal rule addressing pay-to-play practices necessary given the variability among State and local pay-to-play laws and the complex analyses required to determine whether these regulations are applicable? Why or why not?
12. Would the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule affect the application of other rules or regulations (including, but not limited to, the MSRB Political Contribution Rule, FINRA Rule 2030, and Exchange Act rule 15Fh-6) applicable to pay-to-play conduct by registered broker-dealers, registered municipal advisers, security-based swap dealers, or any other registered firms? Why or why not? If so, which rules and how? For example, if the political contribution rule were rescinded as proposed, would limitations on the use of solicitors under other rules and regulations continue to apply to advisers? Why or why not? Additionally, what impact (
13. Do commenters believe that the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule would increase pay-to-play risk for exempt reporting advisers and foreign private advisers given that these advisers are not subject to the code of ethics rule or the compliance rule? Why or why not?
The proposal would amend the recordkeeping rule to eliminate the provisions requiring a registered investment adviser to make and keep certain records in connection with the
As discussed above, however, an adviser must manage the risk of engaging in pay-to-play practices, including by adopting policies and procedures under the compliance rule and a code of ethics under rule 204A-1 as appropriate.
We request comment on all aspects of the proposed amendments relating to the recordkeeping rule, including the following:
14. Should the recordkeeping rule be amended to eliminate all the current political contribution recordkeeping requirements, as proposed?
15. Alternatively, should we retain certain recordkeeping requirements within rule 204-2(a)(18)? If so, which requirements and why? Are there any additional recordkeeping requirements related to pay-to-play practices that we should require? If so, what requirements and why? For example, are there specific records that we should require an adviser to maintain that would assist the Commission in identifying fraudulent pay-to-play practices?
We are mindful of the costs imposed by, and the benefits obtained from, our rules. Section 202(c) of the Advisers Act
Pay-to-play practices in investment adviser markets, when they occur, can impose significant losses on public investment systems and, historically, have not been fully corrected by market forces.
These problems can persist as a type of collective action problem.
Pay-to-play practices transfer wealth from taxpayers and fund beneficiaries to investment advisers and government officials responsible for selecting them. For example, they undermine the fair competition for government contracts and can result in higher fees and lower performance for pension funds and other government investments. They could also force investment advisers to dedicate resources to unproductive activity (
The political contribution rule, rule 206(4)-5, was designed as a prophylactic measure to address pay-to-play practices before they occur. In practice, however, this rule has imposed unintended costs on investment advisers, their employees, their State and local government clients, and indirectly on other market participants.
The proposal would rescind the political contribution rule and thereby eliminate the compliance costs and unintended consequences associated with the rule. While rescinding the rule could increase the risk of pay-to-play practices in investment adviser markets, we believe that this risk would be mitigated by several regulatory
The baseline against which the costs, benefits, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the proposed rule are measured consists of the current state of the investment adviser market, current practice as it relates to pay-to-play policies and procedures, and the current regulatory framework.
The antifraud provisions of the Advisers Act make it unlawful for an adviser to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client, to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client, or to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.
Further, the compliance rule under the Advisers Act requires an adviser that is registered, or required to be registered, to adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations, by the adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the rules that the Commission has adopted under the Advisers Act, which include requirements to prevent certain pay-to-play practices. The adviser must review these policies' adequacy and effectiveness on at least an annual basis.
The political contribution rule acts as a prophylactic rule to prevent pay-to-play activity. The rule generally prohibits an investment adviser from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or any of its covered associates makes a contribution to an elected official of a government entity, or candidate for such office, whose office is in a position to influence the selection of the adviser.
Exchange Act rule 15Fh-6 imposes political contribution restrictions on security-based swap dealers and their covered associates that are parallel to the political contribution rule's restrictions on investment advisers and their covered associates.
FINRA adopted rule 2030 and a related recordkeeping rule, rule 4580, to enable its member firms to continue to engage in distribution and solicitation activities for compensation with government entities on behalf of investment advisers following the adoption of rule 206(4)-5. The elements and terms used in rule 2030 are “substantially equivalent” to those in rule 206(4)-5, because one of the objectives of FINRA's proposal is to satisfy the “regulated person” definition in rule 206(4)-5(f)(9) so that an investment adviser may pay a FINRA member firm to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services.
Some States and municipalities place similar restrictions on investment advisers subject to their jurisdiction or government entities that can contract with investment advisers, though there is significant variation in the individuals, firms, or entities to which these rules apply and how they are restricted. State and local restrictions vary considerably in their scope and approach. Some jurisdictions prohibit principals of investment advisory firms from contributing to campaigns or other organizations related to offices with discretion in the selection or compensation of an investment adviser.
Pay-to-play practices are inconsistent with an adviser's role as a fiduciary under the Advisers Act and constitute fraud under the Federal securities laws.
To comply with rule 206(4)-5 and to otherwise ensure that an adviser is complying with the Advisers Act, we understand that advisers have enacted compliance frameworks to identify sources of pay-to-play risk, manage their covered associates, and document the activities of the advisers and their covered associates. Activities within this framework include: establishing pre-clearance procedures and/or annual certifications for political contributions; developing training programs to educate employees about the rule and its implications; maintaining records of employee contributions and other relevant activities; reviewing public contribution databases; and creating disciplinary protocols for associates who violate the adviser's policies.
According to an industry survey of investment advisers,
According to the same survey, approximately 16 percent of investment advisers increased the type, scope, and/or frequency of pay-to-play-related compliance testing compared to the previous year. Additionally, 11 percent of surveyed advisers cited pay-to-play as an area of focus during their most recent SEC examination.
As of December 2025, and incorporating filings received through April 30, 2026, there were 16,434 registered investment advisers, with roughly $166.0 trillion in total regulatory assets under management and approximately 1,110,000 employees. There were also 6,463 exempt reporting advisers with additional assets of approximately $7.5 trillion.
The rule also affects government entities that may use investment advisory services. In particular, State and local government retirement funds currently have $9.6 trillion in assets, representing 33 percent of all U.S. pension assets, and State-run qualified tuition plans currently manage $603 billion in assets.
Rescinding the political contribution rule would likely lower the ongoing direct compliance costs for advisers to comply with the Advisers Act. The extent of the cost savings would vary with many factors. Notably, cost savings would vary with the extent to which an adviser would choose to modify its policies and procedures related to identifying pay-to-play risks and eliminating pay-to-play practices.
In particular, removing the prescriptive requirements of rule 206(4)-5 would allow investment advisers to tailor their policies and procedures to their specific pay-to-play risks, resulting in lower compliance costs for most advisers. For example, some advisers that currently vet the past political contributions of prospective employees or employees being considered for a transfer or a promotion may no longer do so or do so in fewer situations. These savings could free adviser employees for other tasks or reduce the need for dedicated compliance staff, or both. Advisers may pass these cost savings on to their government clients through lower fees or improved service quality.
Some advisers might change their policies and procedures to remove specific requirements designed to comply with rule 206(4)-5, while retaining the same or similar obligations as a matter of practice. An adviser might choose to retain a particular policy either because its State's regulations are already more stringent than an analogous policy imposed by the political contribution rule,
Some advisers may choose not to change a policy, other than by removing specific requirements for complying with rule 206(4)-5 and related recordkeeping requirements, because the initial cost of changing policies is larger than the ongoing savings that would accrue from switching to a different policy.
The 2010 Adopting Release estimated the ongoing compliance costs related to the political contribution rule. These costs include ongoing monitoring of employee contributions, compliance training, recordkeeping, and related expenses.
Advisers that currently apply or consider applying for an exemption under the political contribution rule would also see reduced costs because they would no longer spend time and resources deliberating, preparing, or submitting applications for an exemption. We estimate that the reduction in costs related to advisers that would otherwise file for an exemption would result in $68,916.49 in savings in aggregate per year,
Market participants have claimed that the political contribution rule has distorted investment adviser labor markets by causing advisers to screen candidates based on prior political contributions rather than professional qualifications. When these screenings remove personnel from consideration whose contributions pose no appreciable pay-to-play risk, they reduce the quality of advisory teams without providing any corresponding benefit. The rule may have further distorted labor markets if qualified individuals chose not to seek employment at certain investment advisers because of those firms' policies on political contributions. To the extent that rescission of the rule would result in advisers hiring employees with prior contributions that the adviser previously would have rejected despite posing no appreciable pay-to-play risks or qualified applicants becoming more likely to apply for these positions, the quality of investment management available to public pension plans may improve, which would directly benefit plan beneficiaries. The Commission does not have data on measures indicating the extent of adviser competition that would allow us to quantify the magnitude of any such distortions.
The political contribution rule may also have made government contracts less appealing, and so the rule may have disincentivized investment advisers from seeking such contracts: Some advisers might be reluctant to limit their employees' political contributions while others might fear the risks associated with unintended minor infractions of the political contribution rule by their covered associates, as this could lead to the loss of profits from a client over a two-year period. The compliance costs that advisers incur under the political contribution rule in order to compete for government contracts might also deter some advisers, particularly smaller advisers, from competing for government contracts. Similarly, some advisers may not compete for government contracts because of a prior contribution, despite a lack of any associated pay-to-play risk. To the extent that rescission expands the pool of advisers competing for government contracts, government clients may benefit from lower advisory fees or improved investment performance. State and local government retirement funds currently hold $9.6 trillion in assets.
In some circumstances, the two-year compensation ban may have harmed the government clients and beneficiaries the rule was designed to protect. When an adviser loses the right to receive compensation from a government client, the loss of compensation could cause an adviser to reduce the resources available to service that client (
Market participants have also suggested that rule 206(4)-5 has made advisers to government clients and covered associates of these advisers less likely to make contributions to government officials. This is supported by survey data in which 12 percent of investment adviser respondents indicated that they have some type of blanket prohibition on political contributions for their employees.
To the extent that the rule has reduced competition in the market for third-party solicitors by limiting such solicitors to certain regulated persons, and thus increased the price for such solicitation, rescinding the rule may also allow more advisers to use a greater variety of placement agents to solicit government clients. This could allow smaller advisers who do not have the internal resources to solicit government clients to compete for such contracts, which may increase competition in that market. However, this effect could be mitigated by applicable rules and regulations that govern the use of solicitors, including the applicable MSRB and FINRA rules, as well as other applicable State and local rules prohibiting third-party solicitation, to the extent they are relevant to the adviser and would still be in effect.
All advisers would face a one-time cost in determining whether to modify their policies and procedures and code of ethics in response to a rescission of the political contribution rule. Advisers that choose to modify their practices would incur additional costs as a result. We estimate that this cost will be approximately $51 million in aggregate.
Rescinding the political contribution rule may increase the risk of pay-to-play practices by investment advisers. While we believe that this risk can be mitigated, as discussed in detail below, any pay-to-play activity that does occur comes with significant costs. Pay-to-play activities can result in the selection of one adviser over a more qualified adviser, potentially leading to diminished returns, higher costs, or other reductions in service quality (such as speed of execution or quality of communication and coordination) to pensions and other investments managed by governments. In addition, markets with pay-to-play dynamics create potentially large barriers to entry. If business contracts are preferentially awarded to providers who make political donations or pay third-party solicitors, then these costs become an expense to any adviser, or to the employees of that adviser, wishing to compete for these contracts. Either the provider bears these costs directly or the provider experiences a reduction in the likelihood of acquiring contracts, thereby decreasing the expected return from competing for that business. The increased cost or reduced gain of doing business in this market could lead to decreased competition in the market for investment advisory services and ultimately lower-quality services for government clients.
The academic literature provides evidence to suggest that campaign donations from financial institutions (
In support of the political contribution rule, the Commission cited a number of enforcement actions taken between 2000 and 2009 against investment advisers relating to alleged pay-to-play practices.
Changes to the technological, political, and legal landscape since the political contribution rule was adopted in 2010 may also help explain the absence of SEC enforcement actions and suggest that the rule's rescission could have a more limited impact on the actual incidence of pay-to-play practices. For example, spending in political campaigns is significantly higher today than it was in 2010.
Importantly, pay-to-play practices were unlawful under the Advisers Act and other State and Federal laws before rule 206(4)-5 was adopted and would remain unlawful following its rescission.
The proposal would amend the recordkeeping rule to eliminate the provisions requiring a registered (or required to be registered) investment adviser to make and keep certain records in connection with the political contribution rule. This revision would result in lower costs to advisers since it would reduce the number of records that are required to be maintained. In aggregate, we estimate that this revision would result in a lower burden of approximately $646,000.
Apart from these cost savings, there would be no independent effects associated with this amendment beyond those that would arise in conjunction with the rescission of the political contribution rule. Importantly, advisers would continue to be required to maintain certain records of their policies and procedures associated with managing their pay-to-play risk.
Throughout this economic analysis, we have estimated, as applicable, monetized benefits and costs per affected entity or filing. In this section, we present aggregate measures of these monetized effects across entities and time. These totals include only benefits and costs, as applicable, that are monetized in the economic analysis and thus do not encompass all of the proposed rule's benefits and costs. In addition, these estimates assume each entity will realize the full extent of possible benefits and costs as a result of the proposed rescission; actual benefits or costs may vary across entities depending on their existing practices and whether those practices continue after the adopted rule.
Tables 1 and 2 report the benefits and costs, respectively, that are monetized in this economic analysis, aggregated across all affected entities and instances of filings. To aggregate these monetized effects we use estimates of the number of affected parties and filings
We estimate that the total aggregate initial monetized benefit is $0 and the total aggregate annual monetized benefit is $416,325,639.50.
We estimate
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Commission reports estimated total monetized benefits and costs for all affected entities in two additional ways specified in OMB Circular A-4.
We report (1) the present values of expected benefits and costs that are monetized in our Economic Analysis, aggregated across all affected entities, over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026, as well as (2) the annualized values over the same time horizon that are derived from the present values. This time horizon represents the period over which the principal benefits and costs that are monetized in the Economic Analysis are expected to accrue.
Table 3 reports the present values of the aggregate monetized benefits and costs from Tables 1 and 2, combining initial and annual monetized benefits and costs. The analysis uses annual real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year time horizon, starting in 2026.
Table 4 reports annualized aggregate monetized benefits using real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent over a 10-year horizon.
The Commission believes that rescinding the political contribution rule would allow advisers to enact policies and procedures tailored to their specific pay-to-play risks, reducing compliance costs and avoiding the unintended consequences associated with the current rule. Where advisers can tailor their policies and code of ethics to their specific pay-to-play risks and eliminate requirements that are not relevant to their business, the efficiency of their compliance programs would increase. To the extent that these resources are redeployed to investment management and client-facing activities, advisers' productive efficiency would increase, which could result in higher-quality services for advisers' government clients.
As described in the cost and benefits section above, rescinding the political contribution rule could change the quality, either positively or negatively, of investment advisers retained by government entities. This disparity in quality may be meaningful from the perspective of the State or local government client as discussed in the previous section. Further, to the extent that rescission systematically changes the types of advisers retained by government entities, the aggregate effect on public pension asset allocation could be meaningful. The direction and magnitude of this effect are uncertain and would depend on whether advisers newly able to compete for government mandates following rescission have systematically different investment approaches than current incumbent advisers. If such an effect were large enough, it could affect asset price efficiency in markets where public pension funds are significant investors.
The rescission of the political contribution rule could increase competition in the investment adviser market for State and local government clients. As described above, some advisers currently face barriers to competing for State and local government clients because of the existence of the political contribution rule, and the policies and procedures they have adopted to comply with it. To the extent that, as a result, advisers have not participated, or have been less likely to participate, in the solicitation of State and local government contracts, the rescission of the political contribution rule would remove this impediment to competition in the advisory market. Prospective government clients with a greater number of advisers to choose from may be better positioned to select an adviser that can provide advice better tailored to their specific investment needs. Additionally, increased competition could lead to better investment terms for government clients and could ultimately benefit plan beneficiaries as well as taxpayers.
Conversely, the rescission of the political contribution rule could decrease competition in those same markets if the rescission were to generate pay-to-play expectations in these markets, despite the associated activity remaining unlawful.
The rescission of the rule may also increase labor market competition among investment adviser professionals by removing two distortions in those markets.
Finally, rescinding the rule could lead to increased competition in the market for government solicitations. Since the rule currently prohibits unregulated persons from soliciting government clients on behalf of an adviser (unless they have one of an enumerated list of relationships to that adviser), rescinding the rule could increase the types of parties able to act in that capacity, and thus increase competition in that market. However, this effect could be mitigated by applicable rules and regulations that govern the use of solicitors, including the MSRB Political Contribution Rule, FINRA Rule 2030, and Exchange Act rule 15Fh-6, as well as applicable State and local rules prohibiting third-party solicitation to the extent they are relevant to the adviser and would still be in effect.
The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect capital formation in aggregate. However, on the margin, rescission could increase capital managed by investment advisers if greater competition for government mandates expands adviser use by government entities. Conversely, if rescission leads to a perceived increase in pay-to-play risk, some investors (among both government clients and the broader market) may reduce allocations through investment advisers. This may indirectly lead to changes in capital formation for certain assets if investment advisers are more or less likely than are investors' alternatives to invest in a particular asset.
We considered combining the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule with a new, more particularized rule specifically requiring that investment advisers adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to detect and prevent pay-to-play activities. These policies and procedures could have been required to contain certain prescribed features, such as political contribution limits, annual review and written reports, risk assessments, and the types of employees that must be covered. The prescribed features would have been designed to be minimal, imposing requirements necessary to address the pay-to-play risks of any adviser seeking government clients while preserving flexibility for advisers to address their specific risks.
The benefits of this approach would be similar to those for the proposed rescission. Investment advisers are already required to adopt and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violation of the Advisers Act; additionally, the Commission has stated that pay-to-play arrangements violate the antifraud provisions of section 206 of the Advisers Act. The additional deterrence this alternative would provide, relative to the proposed rescission, would be limited to situations in which an adviser's policies and procedures, under the proposed rescission, would not contain the features prescribed under the alternative and where these minimal requirements under the alternative would have better deterred pay-to-play practices.
However, a separate policies and procedures provision would risk advisers anchoring to the types of provisions required by this alternative rather than designing their own policies and procedures to be better tailored to the particular risks and business practices of the firm. It also could incentivize some advisers with no pay-to-play risk (for example, an adviser with no government clients and no intention of ever soliciting or accepting government clients) to enact policies at some cost to comply with the provision even in the absence of a substantive concern. Accordingly, the costs of this alternative would be greater than those of the proposed rescission.
Instead of rescinding the political contribution rule, we considered amending the rule to make it less costly to comply with. For example, we considered raising the
Moreover, under this alternative, some advisers may treat the amended rule's requirements as sufficient to comply with their pay-to-play-related obligations under the Advisers Act, regardless of their actual pay-to-play risk, rather than designing their own policies and procedures to be better tailored to the particular risks and business practices of the firm. In this respect, the proposed rescission may, for some advisers, result in more effective pay-to-play compliance than targeted amendments to the existing rule.
We considered exempting smaller advisers, measured by total assets under management or government client assets under management, from the rule's requirements or subjecting them to less stringent requirements than larger firms.
We seek comment on all aspects of the economic analysis of the proposed rescission, including whether the analysis accurately characterizes the costs and benefits. To the extent possible, we request that commenters provide supporting data and analysis. In particular, we ask commenters to consider the following questions:
16. We state that we do not have data to estimate the effect of the political contribution rule on competition in either the investment adviser market for government clients or the investment adviser labor market. Are there sources of data and/or estimation methods that would allow us to make these estimates?
17. We state that we do not currently have data on the extent to which advisers use third parties to solicit government entities. Are there sources of data and/or estimation methods that would allow us to make these estimates?
18. In section III.C.2, we discuss ways that the world has changed since 2010 that could impact the prevalence of pay-to-play practices independent from the political contribution rule. Is this discussion accurate? Are there other ways in which the world has changed that could deter or encourage pay-to-play practices that are deterred by the political contribution rule?
19. In section III.C.2, we characterize ways in which advisers may be more or less likely to make significant changes to their policies and procedures in response to a rescission of the rule. Are these characterizations accurate? Are there other important determinants of the extent to which advisers would modify their policies and procedures? Is the magnitude of the response reasonably estimated?
20. Would the proposed rescission impose any costs on State and local governments that we do not consider here? For example, do they rely on the political contribution rule for some aspect(s) of their internal vetting process when selecting investment advisers or as a means of verifying compliance with their own requirements?
The proposal would revise an existing “collection of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the “PRA”).
We discuss below the collection of information burdens associated with the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5, which would impact the PRA burden calculations for rule 204-2, rule 0-4, and rule 206(4)-7.
Section 204 of the Advisers Act provides that investment advisers registered or required to be registered with the Commission must make and keep certain records for prescribed periods, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate certain reports. Rule 204-2 sets forth the requirements for maintaining and preserving specified books and records. This collection of information is mandatory. The collection of information under rule 204-2 is necessary for the Commission staff to use in its examination and oversight program, and the information generally is kept confidential subject to the provisions of applicable law.
The proposed amendments to rule 204-2 would eliminate paragraph (a)(18) of the rule, which provides for the requirement that a registered adviser that provides investment advisory services to a government entity, or to a covered investment pool in which a government entity is an investor, must make and keep certain records relating to its covered associates; government entities to which the adviser provides or has provided investment advisory services (or which are or were investors in any covered investment pool to which the adviser provides or has provided investment advisory services); contributions made by the adviser and its covered associates to government entity officials, or payments to State political parties or PACs; and regulated persons soliciting government entities on behalf of the adviser. Advisers are currently required to maintain such records for five years.
When rule 206(4)-5 was adopted, the Commission estimated that 1,697 registered advisers provided investment advisory services to government clients and to certain pooled investment vehicles in which government entities invest, and thus would be affected by the rule 204-2(a)(18) recordkeeping requirements.
The total annual collection of information burden currently approved by OMB for rule 204-2 is 2,941,494 hours, with total internal monetized costs of $239,732,050.80.
As of December 2025, and incorporating filings received through April 30, 2026, there were 16,434 SEC registered investment advisers. This represents an increase of 528 registered advisers from the previously approved burden. Therefore, we estimate that the total aggregate burden under rule 204-2 will increase by approximately 97,642.93 hours
We estimate that approximately 2,091 advisers currently provide investment advisory services to government clients and to certain pooled investment vehicles in which government entities invest.
As discussed above, we are revising the wage rate methodology used to calculate cost burdens.
Although the estimated annual aggregate burden per adviser would decrease by approximately 0.2545 hours (or approximately 15 minutes) per adviser,
Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may, upon application, exempt an adviser from certain prohibitions of the rule concerning political contributions, and provides a non-exclusive list of factors the Commission will consider when evaluating these applications. 17 CFR 275.0-4 (“rule 0-4”) under the Advisers Act prescribes general instructions for filing an application seeking exemptive relief with the Commission.
When rule 206(4)-5 was adopted, the Commission estimated that approximately seven advisers annually would apply to the Commission for an exemption from the political contribution rule,
We currently estimate all, or substantially all, of the work performed in preparing a rule 0-4 application would be performed by outside counsel, but we have requested approval for a one-hour internal burden for administrative purposes. We do not have a corresponding cost figure because we have previously not provided an estimated internal cost associated with this burden.
Based on our collection of information burden currently approved by OMB, we currently estimate that the Commission annually receives approximately seven Advisers Act exemptive applications.
We are amending the PRA burden calculation associated with rule 0-4 to account for the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5. The Commission receives approximately two requests annually for exemptive relief under rule 206(4)-5(e). As a result of the proposal, we are reducing the estimated number of exemptive applications received annually by two applications, reducing the estimated number of well-precedented and medium complexity applications by one application each. Applications for exemptive relief under rule 206(4)-5(e) generally do not qualify as a highly complex application. Thus, we now estimate that the Commission would annually receive approximately two well-precedented applications, two medium complexity applications, and one highly complex application.
We continue to believe that most of the work of preparing an application is
Further, we are revising the ranges for the cost of applications to approximately $15,520.14 for preparing a well-precedented application; $52,834.35 for preparing medium complexity applications; and approximately $242,833.09 to prepare a highly complex application. We have adjusted these numbers to reflect changes in prices from the previously approved estimates based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's CPI Inflation calculator.
The revisions made in response to the proposal result in a decrease of two rule 0-4 exemptive applications submitted annually. We estimate no changes in the annual internal time burden. Further, we estimate that the total annual external cost burden for preparing and submitting an application to decrease by approximately $60,845.31.
Rule 206(4)-7 requires investment advisers registered or required to be registered with the Commission to (1) adopt and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Advisers Act and its rules, (2) review those compliance policies and procedures annually, and (3) designate a chief compliance officer who is responsible for administering the compliance policies and procedures.
When the Commission adopted rule 206(4)-5 in 2010, there were 11,607 registered advisers subject to rule 206(4)-7, and the Commission estimated that the average burden per adviser to comply with rule 206(4)-7 was 80 hours for a total aggregate burden of 928,560 hours.
As a result of the proposal to rescind rule 206(4)-5, we believe an adviser would amend its policies and procedures to reflect the adviser's change in approach to addressing the risk of engaging in pay-to-play practices. We estimate that an adviser, regardless of size, would incur a one-time initial burden of 2 hours to revise its policies and procedures in response to the proposal. Based on our estimate that 2,091 registered advisers are affected by rule 206(4)-5,
We are amending the PRA burden as a result of the proposal and to reflect updated data. We estimate that as of December 2025 and incorporating filings received through April 30, 2026, there are 16,434 SEC registered investment advisers. Absent the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5, the updated annual aggregate time burden is 1,479,060 hours,
We request comment on whether these estimates are reasonable. We also request comment regarding whether the Commission should revise the existing collection of information for rule 204A-1 to account for an adviser revising its code of ethics in response to the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicits comments in order to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information; (iii) determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) determine whether there are ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing these burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of information requirements should direct their comments to the OMB Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
The Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (the “IRFA”) in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (the “RFA”).
Since the Commission adopted the political contribution rule in 2010, we have observed numerous challenges associated with the rule's complexity and how broadly investment advisers have applied the rule. Market participants also have stated, among other issues, that the rule is burdensome,
We believe that rescinding the current rule in its entirety and relying on the existing requirements of the Advisers Act and associated rules, including prohibitions on fraud, fiduciary duty requirements, and the compliance rule, could avoid many of these issues and unintended consequences and lead to appropriate measures to address pay-to-play practices. The rescission of the political contribution rule would provide advisers with the flexibility to design tailored compliance policies and procedures and codes of ethics in accordance with their own business models and risk profiles to prevent pay-to-play practices.
The Commission is proposing the rescission of rule 206(4)-5 and rule amendments to rule 204-2 contained in this document under the authority set forth in the Advisers Act, particularly section 204(a), 206(4), and 211(a) thereof [15 U.S.C. 80b-4(a), 80b-6(4), and 80b-11(a)].
The RFA
The Commission estimates that as of December 2025, and incorporating filings received through April 30, 2026, there are approximately 460 small SEC-registered investment advisers.
If the political contribution rule is ultimately rescinded, investment advisers who provide or seek to provide investment advisory services to State or local governments may need to update their compliance policies and procedures to replace those policies and procedures that were established pursuant to the prescriptive nature of the political contribution rule with policies and procedures that are better tailored to address the risks of pay-to-play practices to their organization, as needed. In choosing a standard of business conduct for their code of ethics, an adviser who provides or seeks to provide investment advisory services to State or local governments would need to review and, if necessary, adjust its code of ethics to include a standard of business conduct that aligns with any policies and procedures the adviser adopts under the compliance rule in the context of its pay-to-play risks. Further, such an adviser would still be required to make and keep certain books and records under rule 204-2, including a copy of its policies and procedures and code of ethics that address the adviser's pay-to-play risks as well as records of all written agreements with government clients and solicitors or placement agents retained to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the adviser.
We estimate that approximately 34 small entity investment advisers would be impacted by the proposed rescission of the political contribution rule and rule 204-2(a)(18). The proposal is designed to provide advisers with additional flexibility to adapt their policies and procedures and code of ethics to their specific businesses and risks in a more holistic manner consistent with their obligations under the Advisers Act. Thus, the proposal would reduce the overall burden on small entity investment advisers by removing the prescriptive requirements of the current pay-to-play rule and its associated recordkeeping requirements and replacing them with a flexible approach to addressing pay-to-play risks that would allow an adviser to design a tailored compliance approach that better fits its business model.
We do not believe that the proposed amendments would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other existing Federal rules.
The RFA directs the Commission to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant economic impact on small entities. We considered the following alternatives for small entities in relation to the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5 and the amendments to rule 204-2 to enhance the benefits of the proposal for small entities: (1) establishing different
Regarding the first and second alternative, the Commission is not exempting or proposing different compliance or recordkeeping requirements for small advisers since we are rescinding rule 206(4)-5, and its corresponding requirements, in its entirety. The proposal is designed to eliminate a rule that was operationally challenging and burdensome for advisers to comply with and instead permit an adviser to address its pay-to-play risks by leveraging the existing regulatory framework under the Advisers Act. To establish different requirements for small advisers could be more burdensome for these advisers as such an approach would diminish the flexibility the proposal would provide an adviser to tailor its policies and procedures and adjust its code of ethics in the context of the adviser's unique pay-to-play risks.
Regarding the third alternative, we believe the proposal is clear and that further clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the compliance requirements is not necessary. As discussed above, we propose to rescind rule 206(4)-5 and make corresponding amendments to rule 204-2, which would eliminate the prescriptive requirements under the current rules for all advisers. As a result, an adviser would be able to tailor its approach to mitigating pay-to-play risk by utilizing the tools available under the existing regulatory framework.
Regarding the fourth alternative, there are no standards to implement with regard to the proposed rescission of rule 206(4)-5 and the proposed amendments to rule 204-2. The proposal is designed to eliminate the requirements under these rules for all advisers, and no new requirements would be adopted.
The Commission requests comments regarding this IRFA. We request comments on the number of small entities that may be affected by our proposed amendments and whether the proposed amendments would have any effects not considered in this analysis. Further, we request comment regarding the number of advisers exempt from registration in reliance on section 203(b)(3) of the Advisers Act that have State or local government clients, the number of advisers that are exempt reporting advisers that have State or local government advisers, and the number of these advisers that would qualify as small entities. We request that commenters describe the nature of any effects on small entities subject to the rules and provide empirical data to support the nature and extent of such effects.
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.
This action is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by OMB, consistent with Executive Order 14215. This action, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
The Commission is proposing to rescind rule 206(4)-5 of the Advisers Act under the authority set forth in sections 206(4) and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-6(4) and 80b-11(a)].
The Commission is proposing corresponding amendments to rule 204-2 under the Advisers Act under the authority set forth in sections 204(a) and 211(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 80b-4(a) and 80b-11(a)].
Administrative practice and procedure, Investment advisers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the SEC proposes to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, 80b-11, 1681w(a)(1), 6801-6809, and 6825, unless otherwise noted.
By the Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule and draft guidance; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations that govern the licensing of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings and waste that arise from the extraction and milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed requirements for groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities. The NRC's current regulations are focused on conventional uranium milling and do not expressly address uranium extraction by the ISR process. Additionally, NRC proposes to amend its regulations that govern decommissioning timeliness for all licensees to provide additional flexibility for licensees to delay the initiation of decommissioning activities in situations where safety would not be impacted.
Comments must be submitted electronically using
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID NRC-2025-1204, at
Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments are public records; they are publicly displayed exactly as received, and will not be deleted, modified, or redacted. Comments may be submitted anonymously.
Follow the search instructions on
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
Timothy Mossman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9100, email:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations in appendix A to part 40 that govern the licensing of uranium mills and the disposition of tailings and waste that arise from the extraction and milling of uranium by issuing risk-informed requirements for groundwater protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities.
The NRC is also proposing to amend its regulations in parts 30, 40, 52, 53, 70, 72 of title 10 of the
Major provisions of the proposed rule include changes that would:
1. Establish regulations specific to ISR facilities to protect groundwater from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the generation of byproduct material;
2. Add several new ISR-specific definitions and revise other definitions in Appendix A;
3. Clarify that alternate concentration limits (ACLs) are an allowable cleanup standard for groundwater at ISR facilities;
4. Increase flexibility, clarity, and efficiency related to decommissioning requirements for power reactors and nonpower reactors;
5. Streamline and extend regulations related to the initiation of decommissioning of nuclear materials facilities; and
6. Streamline extension request reviews by risk-informing the information that must be included in the request.
The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative costs and benefits of this proposed rule and associated draft guidance as well as qualitative factors to be considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. The proposed rule would result in net cost savings for industry and NRC, which will increase in proportion to the number of affected licensing actions as detailed in this report. For each ISR Application industry would save $288,600 and the NRC would save $316,200 due to the more efficient process of the proposed rule. For each power reactor decommissioning exemption request avoided due to the provisions of the proposed rule industry would save $5,920 and the NRC would save $39,500. The future extent of the ISR sector and decommissioning materials and reactor facilities could not be reliably projected, so total values were not calculated. Agreement States and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would incur minor costs in implementing the proposed rule. Agreement States would incur a cost of $106,300 to implement the changes in their regulations. The EPA would incur a cost of $12,600 to provide a required review of the final rule.
The draft regulatory analysis also considers qualitative factors, such as regulatory efficiency. These benefits would result from clarifications, administrative changes, and streamlining of processes (such as notifications).
For more information, please see the draft regulatory analysis (available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML25337A100).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1204 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments must be submitted electronically using
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On May 23, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Section 5, “Reforming and Modernizing the NRC's Regulations,” which requires the NRC to undertake a review and wholesale revision of its regulations and guidance documents as guided by the policies set forth in section 2 of the E.O. In accordance with E.O.14300 the NRC identified changes across title 10 of the
The NRC licenses and regulates uranium mills under its regulations in part 40 of title 10 of the
The ISR process is another uranium milling process that was first used commercially in the United States in the late 1970s. As discussed in more detail
After being pumped to the surface, the lixiviant is transferred to a processing facility where an ion exchange process is used to separate the recovered uranium from the lixiviant. The recovered uranium is processed into a solid form called “yellowcake.” The lixiviant is then pumped back from the processing facility to the ore body in the production unit to continue uranium recovery. The yellowcake is ultimately used in the manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors.
The processing facilities supporting ISR operations (
The ISR process does not generate tailings but does produce wastes that constitute byproduct material, which requires proper management. The NRC's current regulations for byproduct material generated by uranium milling are focused on operations at conventional mill sites and are set forth in appendix A to 10 CFR part 40, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content.” Therefore, the NRC currently regulates groundwater protection at ISR facilities using site-specific license conditions that incorporate risk-informed and best management practices that have been shown to be successful for more than 40 years. Best management practices for groundwater protection, in the context of ISR facilities, are those practices that have been demonstrated to be the most effective and practical means to prevent, detect, and correct any leakage or migration of radiological and nonradiological contaminants to surrounding groundwater.
These risk-informed and best management practices are provided in the NRC regulatory guidance in NUREG-1569, “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications.” Many of the risk-informed practices presented in NUREG-1569 are further described in NUREG/CR-6733, “A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees.” The principal purpose of NUREG-1569 is to ensure the quality and uniformity of the NRC staff's review and evaluation of ISR license applications (for the initial application and any amendments thereto). The NRC also uses this guidance to inform the development of site-specific license conditions.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to address the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the tailings or wastes generated in the uranium milling process, particularly with the tailings piles accumulating at conventional mill sites. The UMTRCA amended several provisions of the AEA, including the classification of these tailings or wastes as a form of byproduct material, provided that the tailings or wastes resulted from the extraction of uranium or thorium from ores processed primarily for their source material content. Such byproduct material is generally referred to as “AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material.”
Through its amendments to the AEA, title II of UMTRCA established a complementary regulatory scheme for active and decommissioning uranium milling facilities between the EPA and the NRC (title II of UMTRCA applies to sites where a viable, legally responsible entity could be identified when the legislation was developed, whereas title I applies to named inactive uranium milling sites). No ISR facilities are covered by title I; all title I sites are inactive conventional milling sites. The UMTRCA added AEA section 275, which authorizes the EPA to issue standards of general application for the protection of public health and safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the processing, possession, transfer, and disposal of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material. For nonradiological hazards, it directs the EPA to establish standards of general application consistent with the standards required under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA). The SWDA is now commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The UMTRCA also added AEA section 84, which requires that the NRC or the appropriate Agreement State ensure the proper management of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material in such a manner as the NRC deems appropriate to protect public health and safety and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with its processing and possession. In doing so, the NRC must conform with the standards of general application issued by the EPA under AEA section 275b. Any general requirements established by the NRC regarding its management of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material must, to the maximum extent practicable, be at least comparable to requirements that are applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the EPA under RCRA. Under AEA section 84a.(3), the EPA would concur on whether such general requirements were in fact comparable to the RCRA requirements for similar hazardous material.
The NRC or the applicable Agreement State agency is the regulatory or licensing agency for all uranium recovery facilities, including ISR facilities, and is responsible for evaluating any license application for an ISR facility or amendment to an existing
The EPA issued its initial standards of general application under UMTRCA for conventional mills in the
The regulations in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2) directly reference the RCRA standards, with certain exceptions as set forth in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2)(i)-(v). The requirements in 40 CFR 264.92 specify that hazardous constituents detected in groundwater at a regulated unit must not exceed the concentration limits provided in § 264.94 in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance. As defined in § 264.95, the point of compliance is a set location, as determined by the regulator, where the § 264.92 groundwater protection standards must be met and where monitoring must be conducted.
As made applicable to uranium byproduct materials by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(2), the RCRA groundwater protection standard in 40 CFR 264.92 requires compliance with § 264.94, “Concentration limits,” which allows for a licensee to meet one of three different hazardous constituent concentration limits that must not be exceeded in groundwater at the point of compliance. The first is the establishment of a background level for each hazardous constituent based upon sampling to determine the concentration or quantity of that hazardous constituent present in the groundwater prior to the commencement of ISR operations. The second establishes a maximum concentration as the standard for certain listed hazardous constituents (
Other aspects of the RCRA groundwater protection standard that are made applicable to the management of uranium byproduct materials include the establishment of a detection monitoring program, as provided in § 264.98. In addition, the regulations in 40 CFR 192.33 require that if the hazardous constituent concentration limit for any hazardous constituent is exceeded, a corrective action program as specified in 40 CFR 264.100 must be put into operation.
The NRC initially issued two regulations to implement UMTRCA: “Uranium Mill Tailings Licensing” (44 FR 50012; August 24, 1979) and “Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements” (45 FR 65521; October 3, 1980). The 1979 rule added definitions for the terms “byproduct material” and “uranium milling” to 10 CFR 40.4, “Definitions.” The 1979 rule defined “uranium milling” to mean any activity that results in the production of byproduct material. The NRC's definition of “byproduct material” sets forth the UMTRCA definition of byproduct material but adds that the term includes discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes. The definition also stipulates that underground ore bodies that remain after ISR operations do not constitute byproduct material. In its 1980 final rule, the NRC further amended 10 CFR part 40 and added its primary UMTRCA implementing regulations as appendix A to 10 CFR part 40. When EPA first issued its UMTRCA implementing standards in 1983, its definition of “uranium byproduct material” was essentially the same as the NRC's definition of “byproduct material” except that EPA did not reference thorium and did not include the clause concerning the discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium solution extraction processes.
Following the EPA's issuance of its 40 CFR part 192, subpart D standards, the NRC made two conforming amendments to appendix A to 10 CFR part 40: “Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC Requirement to EPA Standards” (50 FR 41852; October 16, 1985) and “Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Ground-Water Protection and Other Issues” (52 FR 43553; November 13, 1987). Currently, appendix A applies the EPA RCRA groundwater protection regulations in 40 CFR part 264 that are listed in 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, but it does not explicitly cross-reference them. Although the current criterion 5B requirements in Appendix A are focused on conventional uranium mills, the NRC has applied these requirements to ISR facilities through the use of site-specific license conditions.
A detailed history of this topic can be found in SECY-21-0067, Enclosure 1—Proposed Rule. In short, beginning in the 1990s, the uranium recovery industry expressed concerns to the NRC over perceived dual regulation between the NRC and the EPA with respect to the protection of groundwater impacted by ISR operations. Since that time, there have been a number of efforts at the NRC to address the concerns and increase transparency and clarity regarding NRC's ISR requirements. As relevant here, in SRM-SECY-19-0123, “Staff Requirements—Regulatory Options for In Situ Recovery Facilities,” the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to resume a rulemaking “to provide risk-informed ISR-specific requirements that would provide increased consistency and transparency in licensing reviews between the NRC and Agreement States and to clarify the applicability of existing requirements to ISR activities in 10 CFR part 40, in particular the applicability of alternate concentration limits for ISR facilities.” In addition, the Commission directed a limited scope rulemaking, stating that given “diminished domestic ISR activity, the
In July 2020, the NRC and EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entitled, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Regulation of Uranium in situ Recovery Activities,” which delineates the roles and responsibilities of each agency under Title II of UMTRCA for regulating uranium ISR activities. The purpose of the MOU is to (1) provide a framework for cooperation and coordination between the NRC and the EPA for implementing each party's statutory responsibilities under AEA sections 84 and 275 with respect to regulating uranium ISR activities in a timely, efficient, and thorough manner; (2) describe the responsibilities of each party in regulating uranium ISR activities; and (3) foster opportunities for effective and efficient communication between the NRC and the EPA, including the exchange of written information, and interagency meetings.
The July 2020 MOU contains several provisions to ensure that NRC and EPA align on the regulatory basis for technical requirements in any future rulemaking efforts addressing groundwater protection at ISR facilities. For example, Section VII.c. of the MOU addresses the length of the post-restoration groundwater monitoring period by providing that the corrective action framework of Subtitle C of RCRA is the appropriate regulatory framework for ISR facilities, including the use of ACLs approved by the applicable regulatory agency.
The NRC has, to date, regulated groundwater protection at ISR facilities by using site-specific license conditions that incorporate the relevant regulations for groundwater protection found in appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 and that are otherwise informed by the NRC's operational experience and best management practices. The NRC requires, as a standard condition of its site-specific ISR license, that a licensee demonstrate that it has all necessary permits, including an Underground Injection Control (UIC) aquifer exemption for the groundwater in the production unit (to the extent such an exemption is required), before a licensee can commence ISR operations. More information on the criteria under which EPA may issue an aquifer exemption is available at 40 CFR 146.4. The NRC regulations that address groundwater protection requirements for the management of uranium byproduct material are currently found in criteria 5, 7, 7A, 9, and 13 of appendix A to 10 CFR part 40. The NRC has applied the groundwater protection standards in these criteria to hazardous constituents in the production unit for groundwater protection at ISR facilities using site-specific license conditions, as informed by the applicable regulatory guidance. Additional discussion on the NRC's current regulatory practices for groundwater protection at ISR facilities can be found in the 2021 proposed ISR rule package presented to the Commission in SECY-21-0067: Enclosure 1—Proposed Rule. The discussion in the 2021 rule package explains the differences between conventional mill tailings impoundments and ISR facilities with respect to groundwater protection, point of compliance wells, monitoring for excursions, corrective actions, and groundwater restoration.
Appendix A to part 40 contains requirements primarily related to the operation of conventional uranium mills rather than ISR facilities. In the absence of NRC regulations specific to ISR facilities, licensing reviews for each applicant and approval of other requirements for licensees may vary—depending on differences among NRC and Agreement State licensing reviewers. The proposed regulations are expected to make the licensing process more efficient, and the NRC's regulatory oversight more predictable and consistent for the NRC, licensees, and the public.
Specifically, the NRC proposes to revise appendix A to part 40 by adding a new section VI, “Additional Technical Criteria for ISR Operations,” which consists of a new criterion 14 that establishes groundwater protection requirements specific to ISR facilities. This proposed rule would also revise the preamble paragraph of criterion 5 in appendix A, and paragraphs 5B(1), 5B(2), 5B(5)(b), and 5C to clarify that several of the current conventional uranium milling requirements apply to ISR operations, including the use of ACLs. The proposed rule would further add a new paragraph 5(B)(1)(b) to criterion 5 that would establish the applicable groundwater protection standard for ISR facilities and explicitly cross-refence to paragraph 5B(5), which sets the hazardous constituent concentration limits that must not be exceeded at the groundwater point of compliance. The new paragraph 5(B)(1)(b) would also provide that the Commission will establish the point of compliance and compliance period on a site-specific basis pursuant to criterion 14, and that the Commission will identify hazardous constituents, establish concentration limits, and may adjust the point of compliance, if needed.
The proposed rule would revise the current definition of
In addition to these definition changes related to ISR facilities, the proposed rule also defines the term
The proposed rule would also add a preamble paragraph to section I, “Technical Criteria,” of appendix A to explain that this proposed rule, if
The NRC proposes to add a new criterion 14 to appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 that would establish regulations specific to uranium ISR facilities to protect groundwater from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the generation of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material, thus codifying the risk-informed and best management practices for groundwater protection used by the NRC in site-specific license conditions. Together, with the revised applicable requirements in criterion 5, and the existing requirements in criteria 7, 7A, 9 and 13, the criterion 14 requirements would establish a standardized groundwater protection program for the NRC regulation of ISR facilities.
The proposed requirements in criterion 14 are set out in eight specific provisions: (a) site characterization and suitability demonstration; (b) wellfield pre-operational requirements; (c) well design and construction requirements; (d) operating, monitoring, and reporting requirements; (e) mechanical integrity; (f) wellfield restoration; (g) plugging and abandonment; and (h) corrective action. The criterion 14 provisions set out technical requirements for groundwater protection that would enable the NRC staff to determine if the ISR facility can be operated to prevent, detect, and correct leakage or migration of contaminants from the production unit to surrounding groundwater.
Criterion 14(a) would require that the applicant submit specific, detailed geologic and hydrologic site characterization information (
Criterion 14(b) would set out wellfield pre-operational requirements that must be satisfied after the issuance of the license or license amendment (in the case of a new production unit or new wellfield), but prior to the injection of lixiviant into the production unit. The licensee would be required to undertake sampling and analysis of radiological and nonradiological hazardous constituents described or otherwise identified under criterion 14(b)(2) to determine the background hazardous constituent concentration levels in the groundwater at all point of compliance wells in the production unit in each wellfield, and in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit in each wellfield. The licensee would be required to take at least four independent samples at each point of compliance well as provided in criterion 14(b)(3)(ii) to be consistent with the comparable RCRA regulation in 40 CFR 264.97(g)(1). These samples must be taken at a minimum of two weeks apart or at an interval approved by the NRC. The background hazardous constituent concentration levels would be used by the NRC to establish the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) for groundwater restoration for the production unit and for any corrective action in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production unit.
The licensee also would be required by criterion 14(b)(4) to select at least three indicator constituents to minimize the likelihood of false positives for excursion detection as described in NUREG/CR 3967, “An Analysis of Excursions at Selected In Situ Uranium Mines in Wyoming and Texas.” The licensee also would be required to measure background concentration levels to determine the upper control limit for each indicator constituent at point of compliance wells in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production unit. The licensee also would be required by criterion 14(b)(5) to provide a wellfield restoration plan demonstrating how it will meet the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in the production unit after restoration. The NRC must approve both the background hazardous concentration levels submitted in accordance with criterion 14(b)(3), the selection of the three indicator constituents and the determination of the upper control limit for each indicator constituent in accordance with criterion 14(b)(4), and the wellfield restoration plan submitted in accordance with criterion 14(b)(5), before the licensee may inject lixiviant into the production unit.
Criterion 14(c) would include requirements for injection, production, and monitoring well design and construction.
Criterion 14(d) would include requirements for ISR wellfield operation and monitoring to ensure the control of byproduct material within the wellfield so that the leakage or migration of byproduct material into surrounding groundwater would be prevented and detected so that corrective action could be taken. The licensee would be required to measure injection pressures to demonstrate that the maximum injection pressure has not been exceeded and to measure injection and production flow rates or volume to demonstrate an inward hydraulic gradient in the production unit to prevent migration of byproduct material. The licensee also would be required to conduct monitoring at point of compliance wells to detect any excursion that may signal the migration of byproduct material into surrounding groundwater, to establish a program to detect leaks and spills into the uppermost aquifer, and to meet specific reporting requirements.
Criterion 14(e) would include requirements for mechanical integrity testing to ensure that any leaks caused by failures in specific well installation components (
Criterion 14(f) would include requirements for groundwater restoration in the production unit in the wellfield. The licensee would be required to meet the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) in the production unit after restoration is completed. If the licensee cannot practically achieve these limits, then under paragraph 5B(5)(c), the licensee may propose, and the NRC may establish, an ACL for a hazardous constituent, after a demonstration that there is no present or potential hazard to groundwater or surface water quality pursuant to paragraphs 5B(4) and 5B(6). Under Criterion 14, groundwater restoration would occur to the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits set forth in paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) or to an approved ACL. As such,
Criterion 14(g) would include requirements for the licensee to submit a plugging and abandonment plan for all wells to ensure that byproduct material fluids do not leak from plugged and abandoned wells into surrounding groundwater.
Criterion 14(h) would include requirements for corrective action pursuant to criterion 5D for three specific events. Specifically, corrective action would be required for (1) a confirmed excursion that lasts more than 60 days and has demonstrated an exceedance of an approved hazardous constituent concentration limit; (2) a statistically significant exceedance of an approved hazardous constituent concentration limit at a point of compliance well in the production unit during post-restoration monitoring; or (3) the detection of leakage into the uppermost aquifer.
The proposed rule would update paragraph 5B(5)(b) and remove the criterion 5C table in appendix A and replace it with cross references to specified EPA groundwater protection numerical standards. Currently, paragraph 5B(5)(b) provides a licensee the option to restore the level of a given hazardous constituent present in the groundwater so that it is at or below the maximum concentration for that constituent found in the criterion 5C table, “Maximum Values for Groundwater Protection,” in appendix A if the value is higher than its background concentration level. The current criterion 5C table, which was added to appendix A by the NRC in its 1987 rulemaking, lists the then available MCLs from the EPA's standards for protection of drinking water and the maximum concentrations for other selected constituents expected to be commonly found at uranium milling sites. The proposed paragraph 5B(5)(b) would reference the proposed criterion 5C, which would no longer be in a tabular format but would instead cross-reference the EPA's 40 CFR part 141 tables that contain the various hazardous constituent MCLs for drinking water and the 40 CFR 264.94 table 1, “Maximum Concentration of Constituents for Ground-water Protection,” for those constituents not listed in the 40 CFR part 141 tables (
The NRC is considering these proposed changes to paragraph 5B(5)(b) and to the criterion 5C table because when the NRC added the criterion 5C table in 1987, the EPA was still in the process of developing the MCLs and the EPA has subsequently revised certain MCLs and added new constituents of concern to the standards for protection of drinking water (40 CFR part 141). By adding cross references in a revised criterion 5C to the EPA's 40 CFR part 141 MCLs for hazardous constituents and to the EPA's maximum concentrations in 40 CFR part 264, Table 1, appendix A should not require future revision if the EPA later revises these standards.
A point of compliance well plays an integral groundwater protection role both in the NRC's current practice of regulating ISR facilities by site-specific license conditions and in this proposed rule as it represents the location where the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits set forth in paragraph 5B(5) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 must be met. The proposed rule would continue to define the term the
With this revised definition, a licensee would be required to install point of compliance wells not only in the production unit but also in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit. The point of compliance wells in the production unit would be used to establish the background hazardous constituent concentration levels before lixiviant injection, and subsequent to the termination of ISR operations, would act as the points of compliance to determine if the approved background hazardous constituent limits are achieved after restoration of the production unit and for post-restoration monitoring.
The point of compliance wells in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers would be used to establish the background hazardous constituent concentration levels and the indicator constituent upper control limits for excursion detection before lixiviant injection. During ISR operations, these point of compliance wells in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit would be used to detect excursions. If corrective action is required as a result of an excursion being detected, these point of compliance wells would be used to determine if the corrective action has met the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits.
Paragraph 5A(1) sets forth the primary groundwater protection standard for a conventional mill's surface impoundment, namely, the installation of a liner “that is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the adjacent subsurface soil, groundwater, or surface water.” The regulatory assumption is that the liner will not fail. If leakage of byproduct material occurs due to a failure of the liner to contain the material, then the licensee must take corrective action, which may include the installation of one or more point of compliance wells. Point of compliance wells are, thus, not part of the design of the conventional mill or its surface impoundment, but are only installed in the event of a leakage from the impoundment that will require corrective action.
In contrast, point of compliance wells are a critical part of groundwater protection in the ISR wellfield. The point of compliance wells are required to be installed before operations to measure background hazardous constituent concentration levels in the production unit and in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers. The point of compliance wells are also used during operations for excursion detection in the immediately
The proposed rule would define the term
To prevent the movement of byproduct material into surrounding groundwater, the proposed criterion 14 would require the licensee to establish a monitoring program to detect excursions, including the installation of point of compliance wells in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit that could be affected by migration of byproduct material. Under the proposed criterion 14(d)(2)(iii), after lixiviant injection begins in the production unit, the licensee would be required to take samples to measure the three selected indicator constituents every two weeks from the point of compliance wells in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production unit. In accordance with proposed criterion 14(d)(2)(iii)(A), an excursion would be deemed to have occurred if, in any point of compliance well, two or more excursion indicator constituents exceed their upper control limits. An adequate excursion indicator constituent is one that is found in significantly higher concentrations in the production unit during ISR operations than in the surrounding groundwater outside the production unit.
The licensee should choose excursion indicator constituents that are not significantly attenuated by geochemical or physical processes. Selection of indicator parameters should be reflective of the lixiviant used at the facility. Because a sample may result in a false positive, an excursion confirmation sample must be taken within 48 hours after the initial analysis that indicates that an excursion occurred. If that second sample does not indicate the upper control limits were exceeded, a third sample would be taken. If either the second or the third sample confirms that an excursion has occurred, the licensee would be required to take corrective action according to the requirements in criterion 14(h)(1). If neither of the samples confirm an excursion, the point of compliance well would be removed from excursion status.
The proposed regulations for groundwater restoration in criterion 14(f) state that after completion of ISR operations in a production unit, the licensee must restore the hazardous constituents in the production unit identified under criterion 14(b)(2) to the constituent's approved concentration limit listed in either paragraphs 5B(5)(a) or (b) pursuant to the wellfield restoration plan described in criterion 14(b)(5). The approved concentration limit would be either the approved background concentration for that hazardous constituent (paragraph 5B(5)(a)) or one of the values referenced in criterion 5C (
Under proposed criterion 14(f), if the licensee cannot practically achieve the approved concentration limit for a hazardous constituent, the licensee may propose an ACL pursuant to paragraph 5B(5)(c). In such an instance, criterion 14(f) would require that the licensee submit an application for an ACL as an amendment to its license in accordance with 10 CFR 40.44. After receiving a licensee's application requesting an ACL and consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.104, the NRC would publish a notice of opportunity for hearing in the
Pursuant to proposed criterion 14(f), the NRC would consider the factors specified in criteria 5B(4) and 5B(6) in its evaluation of the ACL application. Criterion 5B(4) requires the NRC to consider the presence of any underground source of drinking water (USDW) and exempted aquifers.
Criterion 5B(6) states that the background concentrations pose no incremental hazard and the other values referenced in criterion 5C, including the MCLs, which are drinking water limits, provide an acceptable hazard. Criterion 5(B)(6) provides the criteria for when that the NRC may establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous constituent. Additionally, criterion 5B(6) provides 9 factors to evaluate potential adverse effects on groundwater quality and 10 factors for potential adverse effects on hydraulically connected surface water quality that will be considered by the NRC for the present and potential hazard finding for a proposed ACL. An evaluation of the criterion 5B(6) factors would enable the NRC to make the appropriate present and potential hazard findings with respect to the proposed ACL. In its license amendment application proposing the ACL, the licensee must provide sufficient site-specific information to enable the NRC to adequately address the criterion 5B(6) factors and to determine whether the proposed ACL for that hazardous constituent in the production unit presents no hazard or potential hazard to groundwater or surface water quality.
These factors are then considered by the NRC to evaluate the ACL for that hazardous constituent in a production unit. An ACL may not be proposed or established until after ISR operations have ceased in the production unit and the licensee has demonstrated that meeting either the approved background concentration or the MCL for the subject hazardous constituent is not practically achievable at that production unit.
Although this proposed rule would not apply to current ISR facility licensees who are not seeking to install a new wellfield within a licensed ISR facility or a new production unit within an operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, such current ISR facility licensees can request that the NRC approve the use of an ACL in accordance with criterion 5B(5)(c). The NRC would process such an ACL request in a similar manner as described in the proposed rule's criterion 14(f), including the publication of a notice of opportunity for hearing in the
Presently, the NRC requires the licensee to conduct post-restoration
If any point of compliance well shows a statistically significant exceedance, the proposed rule would require the licensee to undertake corrective action pursuant to criterion 14(h)(2). Depending on the results of the corrective action, the NRC may require the licensee to restart post-restoration monitoring after the corrective action is completed. Restoration of the production unit would be deemed complete when concentrations for all hazardous constituents remain at or below approved limits for one year.
The proposed post-restoration monitoring requirement would be applicable to each production unit in a wellfield and would ensure that the hazardous constituent concentration levels in each production unit are maintained after restoration at or below the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits.
Although groundwater impacts from ISR operations are more likely to occur in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production unit where uranium is extracted, it is important to ensure that groundwater in the uppermost aquifer is also protected from the effects of near surface and above surface ISR operations. Areas in which these operations occur include waste fluid evaporation ponds, facilities processing lixiviant, source, and byproduct material, and associated wellfield infrastructure. Experience to date shows that leakage or spills into the uppermost aquifer can occur as a result of ISR operations in each of these areas.
The proposed rule's criterion 14(d)(4) would require each licensee to establish a program, to be approved by the NRC, to detect leaks or spills of lixiviant, source, or byproduct material into the uppermost aquifer. If the licensee detects leakage or spills of lixiviant, source, or byproduct material in the uppermost aquifer, the licensee would be required to notify the NRC under proposed criterion 14(d)(5)(iii). Upon detection, the licensee would have to undertake corrective action following the requirements of criterion 14(h)(3). The licensee would be required to notify the NRC of the corrective action taken and the results within 60 days of detection. Corrective action would not be considered complete until the source of the leakage from the licensee's operations has been eliminated and the hazardous constituent concentration levels were restored to the approved hazardous constituent concentration limits.
Permits for underground injection wells—a broad class of wells that includes EPA UIC Class III injection wells used in ISR operations, as well as Class I and V disposal wells also commonly utilized at ISR facilities—are issued under the EPA's UIC program authority set forth in the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146. Under EPA's UIC program, the licensee must apply to the EPA to exempt the groundwater in the production unit if the groundwater is defined as a USDW from the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act before injection in Class III wells can begin. The EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 144.3 define an
Several UIC requirements are similar to those currently required by the NRC in site-specific licenses. The NRC proposes to use the UIC regulations for Class III injection wells as a regulatory framework with slight modifications to be specific to ISR operations, such as mechanical integrity testing, and considers these proposed regulations as complementary to the EPA's UIC regulations. The NRC's licensees would still be subject to the UIC program requirements through direct regulatory oversight by the EPA or those States to which the EPA has delegated its UIC program authority. The requirements in the proposed criterion 14 would only be applied to Class III wells at ISR facilities.
The EPA's UIC program regulates injection wells, whereas the NRC intends to regulate both injection and production wells under the proposed rule. The NRC is proposing to include production wells in the rule as they may be converted to injection wells in order to modify groundwater flow paths during operations, particularly during any corrective actions. Furthermore, to the extent the Class III permittee is granted an aquifer exemption, the UIC program does not require the UIC Class III well permittee (
Finally, proposed criterion 14(f) would ensure protection of the USDWs when establishing an ACL for a hazardous constituent after groundwater restoration. Specifically, criterion 14(f) would require compliance with the existing criterion 5B(4), which requires that in making any determination concerning groundwater use for establishment of an ACL for a hazardous constituent under criterion 5B(6), the NRC must consider the presence of any USDWs and exempted aquifers.
In 2021, the working group involved in the preparation of an earlier version of this proposed rule included NRC staff and two Agreement State representatives, one each from the respective regulatory agencies of Texas and Wyoming. In 2025, the working group involved in preparation of this proposed rule included NRC staff and Agreement State representatives from the respective regulatory agencies of Utah and Wyoming. The Organization of Agreement States approved these representatives for both rulemakings. The EPA and Agreement States will be able to provide comments during the formal comment period for this proposed rule.
The NRC prepared an unofficial redline version of the proposed changes to regulatory text that is intended to help the reader identify the proposed changes. The unofficial redline strikeout version of the proposed rule is publicly available and is listed in the “Availability of Documents” section.
The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following:
The proposed changes for ISR facilities are intended to codify the NRC's existing licensing practices and provide regulatory certainty and clarity with respect to groundwater protection.
1. For new and existing part 40 ISR licensees, do the rulemaking changes add regulatory clarity or regulatory certainty? If not, what additional changes should the staff consider?
2. Does the proposed rule or supplemental guidance create conditions that would be contrary to the rule's purpose and objectives? If so, which portions are contrary to the rule's purpose and objectives, and why? Are there unintended consequences? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed?
ISR facilities typically require several permits at the Federal and/or State level. For example, ISR facilities are required to obtain a permit under EPA's (or an authorized State's) UIC program to inject lixiviant into the subsurface. The NRC has developed this proposed rule language to be complementary to EPA's UIC program but is interested in any potential regulatory conflicts introduced by the rule.
3. Does the proposed rule or supplemental guidance create a conflict with another federal regulation? If so, which regulation, and how should the conflict be resolved?
The regulations in 10 CFR part 40 contain provisions requiring submission of documents to the NRC. One example is the semi-annual effluent reporting requirement contained in 10 CFR part 40.65.
4. Are there any reporting requirements in this proposed rule, or in the existing language in 10 CFR part 40 that should be reconsidered by the staff? Staff is interested in identifying reporting requirements that could be submitted less frequently, that could be maintained on site for review during inspections, or could be satisfied in some other manner.
After completion of ISR operations, the facility must restore groundwater to the approved constituent concentration limits at all point of compliance wells in the production unit. If all efforts to restore ground water have failed and the facility cannot practically achieve the approved concentration limit for a hazardous constituent, the facility may apply for an alternate concentration limit (ACL). The NRC may approve a site-specific ACL after considering practicable corrective actions, and that the constituent will not pose a hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL is not exceeded. The factors to make this hazard finding are currently codified in 5B(4) and 5B(6). This rulemaking proposes to apply the same criteria for ISR.
5. What additional factors or criteria should the NRC consider in either this rulemaking or through the development of guidance documents for the consideration of ACL's at ISR facilities?
The NRC has consistently determined that decontamination should be accomplished and the license terminated as soon as practical. In the 1994 final rule, “Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities.” (59 FR 36026, July 15, 1994), the NRC amended its regulations to establish specific time periods for decommissioning unused portions of operating nuclear materials facilities and for decommissioning the entire site upon license expiration, termination of operations by choice, or termination of operations caused by a period of inactivity. The NRC revised these requirements in recognition of the difficulties associated with a case-by-case approach to decommissioning issues at nuclear materials sites.
In finalizing the associated time periods in that rule, the NRC relied upon an evaluation that indicated that, in general, for materials facilities, further health and safety benefits derived from radiological decay are not likely to be gained by delaying decommissioning beyond approximately 3 years from the date that operations cease. However, the evaluation showed that incremental benefits due to radioactive decay between the second and third years are small, and NRC considered 2 years as a sufficient period for a licensee to make a business decision regarding the future use of the currently-inactive license, separate building, or outdoor area. Therefore, NRC determined that a reasonable time period to permit no principal activities to be conducted under the license or for a building or outdoor area to remain inactive without undergoing decommissioning was 24 months. In doing so, the NRC considered both the health and safety benefits to be obtained by allowing short-lived isotopes to decay before beginning decommissioning operations and the licensee's need to make business decisions concerning the initiation of decommissioning.
In 1988, in a final rule, “General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities.” (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988), NRC amended its decommissioning requirements and established a 60-year period after permanent cessation of operations for an electric utility licensee to complete
Additionally, in finalizing the rule, the Commission also stated that consideration would be given to a decommissioning alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years for power reactors only when necessary to protect public health and safety. The amended regulations identified factors to be considered by NRC in support of a request to extend decommissioning beyond 60 years, including the unavailability of waste disposal capacity, presence of other nuclear facilities at the site, and other site-specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning safely. The 60-year decommissioning requirement for nuclear reactor facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 50, § 50.82(a)(3), is identical to the requirement for reactor facilities licensed under parts 52 and 53, § 52.110(c) and § 53.1070(c), respectively.
Other than the acknowledgment in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.185, “Standard Format and Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report,” that states any such request will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, there was little precedent or guidance regarding how to apply the considerations currently included in §§ 50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) for an alternative schedule for decommissioning. Therefore, recently, in SECY-24-0073 “Site-Specific Considerations for Review of Requests to Complete Power Reactor Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years from Permanent Cessation of Operations,” the staff informed the Commission of how it would evaluate such a request. As explained in SECY-24-0073, the staff's approach when evaluating alternative decommissioning schedule requests draws on the methods historically used for nuclear safety reviews and the seven safety cornerstones of the Reactor Oversight Process, and considers issues including waste disposal capacity, the presence of other nuclear facilities, SAFSTOR conditions, physical security, and partial approvals.
The regulatory language in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3), § 52.110(c), and § 53.1070(c) essentially provides that a licensee can request an alternative decommissioning schedule beyond the 60-year requirement if a licensee can demonstrate that approval of the alternative decommissioning schedule is “necessary to protect public health and safety.” For other regulatory requirements in parts 50, 52, and 53 that do not have specific criteria for relief, exemptions are sought under the associated provision in §§ 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080, “Specific exemptions.” The Atomic Energy Commission established § 50.12 in 1956 in a final rule, “Part 50—Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” (21 FR 355, January 19, 1956) to provide flexibility for the Commission to grant exemptions from regulatory requirements as it determines are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and when a special circumstance is present. The regulatory criteria for approving an alternate decommissioning schedule in §§ 50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c), which allow approval “only when necessary to protect public health and safety,” are much more restrictive than the criteria for review of specific exemptions in §§ 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080.
The proposed rule would offer several changes to the NRC's decommissioning regulations. For nuclear materials facilities, the proposed changes focus on the requirements to initiate timely decommissioning and the process to request an extension to the associated timeframes. The proposed rule would extend the timeframe for notifications related to the initiation of decommissioning, broaden the reasons acceptable for extensions to those timeframes, and streamline the process to request extensions, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on licensees while maintaining public health and safety.
Specifically, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 would restructure the decommissioning requirements in paragraphs (d) of the applicable sections (§§ 30.36(d); 40.42(d); 70.38(d); and 72.54(d)) to separate the requirement to notify NRC if any of four criteria are met, from the requirement for the licensee to initiate decommissioning actions. Also, the proposed rule would extend the period of no principal activities that would trigger the notification provisions from 24-months to 36- or 48-months, depending on the licensee. Additionally, to increase flexibility, the proposed rule would also amend the process to request extensions of the timeframes established in paragraphs (d) of the applicable sections by broadening the reasons for extension, reducing the amount of information contained in the extension request, and increasing the time to develop the extension request from 30 days prior to notification to 45 days after notification required by paragraph (d). (§§ 30.36(f); 40.42(f); 70.38(f); 72.54(f)). This rule does not propose to amend any requirements related to the timely completion of decommissioning of nuclear materials facilities (
The NRC has identified efficiencies to be gained in modifying the regulatory structure for the requirements related to the initiation of decommissioning and decommissioning planning of nuclear materials licensed under §§ 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54 of chapter 10. Currently, nuclear materials licensees are required to notify the NRC and begin decommissioning activities within 60 days of the occurrence of any of four triggering criteria. Because the requirements to notify the NRC and initiate decommissioning or decommissioning planning are collocated in the regulations, a failure to comply with one portion of the regulation results in a violation of the entire regulation. However, failure to provide timely notification after the occurrence of one of the four criteria may be more or less risk significant than a failure to initiate decommissioning activities in a timely manner.
Under current regulations, the NRC may grant requests to extend such time periods if a licensee submits the request no later than 30 days before notification pursuant to paragraph (d) of the applicable section, in accordance with §§ 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f), and 72.54(f)(1). To approve such a request, the NRC must determine that this relief is not detrimental to the public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest. However, because the time period that licensees have to request the exemption is located within paragraph (f) of the aforementioned regulations, neither the licensee nor NRC can use the process established in paragraph (f) to provide relief for a licensee that needs more than 30 days to develop its extension request. Instead, a licensee must request relief from the 30 day requirement using the specific exemptions process established in §§ 30.11, 40.14, 70.17, or 72.7, as applicable.
Additionally, a licensee may request an alternate schedule for submittal of a decommissioning plan in accordance with §§ 30.36(g)(2), 40.42(g)(2), 70.38(g)(2), and 72.54(f)(2). To approve the alternate schedule, the NRC must determine that the alternate schedule is necessary to the effective conduct of decommissioning operations, presents no undue risk from radiation to public health and safety, and is otherwise in the public interest.
The proposed rule revises the current structure of the sections and the differing standards for relief requests or extension requests to be more efficient and flexible. Specifically, this proposed rule would restructure the regulatory requirements in paragraph (d) of the applicable sections to separate the four criteria that trigger notification to NRC from the licensee actions that must be taken to initiate decommissioning after notifying NRC. The proposed change would enhance regulatory clarity as to when licensee actions are required and increase flexibility in when and how licensees may perform these actions. The proposed rule change would allow a licensee to use one process to request an extension to all these timeframes, as described in the proposed §§ 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f), and 72.54(f)(1).
The NRC's policy has always been, and continues to be, that decontamination should be accomplished and the license terminated as soon as practical. Additionally, the agency continues to believe that timely initiation of decommissioning for nuclear material licensees, with notification and commencement of decommissioning activities when there is a period of no principal activities in a separate building or outdoor area or under the license, is appropriate.
However, over the years, it has become clear that business decisions regarding the use or non-use of licensed materials can take longer than the 24 months currently provided in NRC regulations as the length of time in which no principal activity triggers action by a licensee. As an example, a portable gauge licensee may not have a contract to use its gauges for a period that exceeds 24 months and thus would be required to initiate decommissioning or request an extension. The termination of the license would result in an inability to bid on contracts that require the use of a portable gauge for field operations. This creates an unnecessary regulatory burden on the licensee by requiring one of three options: (1) the licensee could terminate the license until a contract bid is found, at which time the licensee would need to apply for a new portable gauge license but would be unable to bid on the contract until the license was issued by the NRC (meanwhile, the licensee may lose the ability to bid on the contract as the license issuance time may be longer than the bidding process); (2) the licensee could request an extension under 10 CFR 30.36(f) if it can demonstrate that the request is not detrimental to public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest; or (3) the licensee could request a “storage only” license and submit the regulatory information needed. In the third scenario, once a contract is available for bidding, a licensee would then need to request a change for the “storage only” license to be reinstated as an operational license, which can take up to 90 days for NRC to review and approve. In such cases, developing, submitting, reviewing, approving, and issuing license amendments for such administrative actions is a significant resource burden on the licensee and NRC with minimal safety benefit.
On numerous occasions, licensees have been required to implement one of the above three options to ensure their business can continue to deliver the safe and secure use of civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials for the benefit of society and the environment. In at least one instance, access to certain medical imaging technologies or nuclear medicine treatments could have been impacted by a licensee who had not performed principal activities within 24 months because it did not have a qualifying patient. However, the licensee maintained its health and safety program throughout that period of time and was the only facility in a remote location to provide this type of medical care. Therefore, it may have been a detriment to public health and safety if NRC had not granted an extension from the 24-month period of no principal activities in this case. The changes proposed in this rule would alleviate this risk.
The proposed rule addresses this issue by amending the regulations to extend the 24-month period of no principal activities to 36 months for part 30 licensees and 48 months for licensees under parts 40, 70, and 72. In gathering data to inform the proposed 36-month period of no principal activities for part 30 licensees, NRC confirmed that incremental benefits due to radioactive decay between the second and third years are small and diminish significantly beyond 3 years. NRC also considered 3 years a reasonable amount of time in which licensees could adequately assess their future business needs in order to make a determination as to whether they should request an extension or initiate decommissioning. Additionally, because each record of receipt and transfer of byproduct material must be retained for 3 years following transfer or disposal of the material in accordance with § 30.51, any period beyond 3 years may present risk of institutional knowledge being lost. Finally, in establishing the 36 month period of no principal activities for part 30 licensees, the NRC also recognized that routine NRC inspections range from 1- to 5-year periodicity, depending upon the type of licensed activities. Therefore, a licensee would reasonably have at least one inspection within the proposed 36-month period of no principal activities before it is required to report to NRC. In the case that a licensee was not inspected during that period, the next periodic inspection would occur within a short period of time after the extension request is submitted and/or approved, thereby providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, common defense and security, and the environment.
While NRC is proposing a 36 month period of no principal activities for part 30 licensees, the NRC is proposing a 48 month period of no principal activities for parts 40, 70, and 72 licensees. The NRC is proposing the 48 month period of no principal activities for these licensees because compared to part 30 licensees, facilities licensed under parts 40, 70, and 72 typically have a lower
These proposed changes would extend the existing period of no principal activities from 24 to either 36 or 48 months (depending upon the type of license) before requiring NRC notification, thereby reducing reporting frequency, reducing costs for licensees and NRC, and providing licensees flexibility to make business decisions while retaining their NRC license, all while providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. Further, these proposed changes retain the core safety principle that materials facilities should be decommissioned as soon as practical.
In this proposed rule, the NRC is maintaining a focus on safety by protecting against potentially abandoned radioactive material while providing flexibility to licensees based on foreseeable (
Under the current §§ 30.36(f), 40.42(f), § 70.38(f), or § 72.54(f)(1), the NRC may approve a request for extension to certain decommissioning timeliness requirements if it determines the request is “not detrimental to the public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest.” While the NRC continues to support the position that nuclear facilities should be decommissioned as soon as practical, operational history has demonstrated that successful decommissioning may require delays to the schedules that do not impact public health and safety or the environment. The proposed rule would remove the current requirement to demonstrate that such requests are not detrimental to public health and safety and in the public interest and replace it with a streamlined process that risk-informs NRC's review of the extension request by specifically focusing the review on safety-significant elements. The proposed paragraph (f) of the applicable sections (§§ 30.36(f), 40.42(f), § 70.38(f), and § 72.54(f)) provides the streamlined request process and includes specific, safety-related information that must be submitted as part of the request to delay the initiation of decommissioning. Namely, the licensee must discuss (1) the business need for continued possession or authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in the public interest (2) the health and safety plan that will be in effect during the extension period and (3) the current decommissioning cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the time period is or is not approved. Currently, Section 2.6 of NUREG-1757 Vol. 3, “Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness,” includes guidance on the type of information the NRC may need to make a determination on an extension request. This proposed rule aims to explicitly identify, in the regulation itself, a list of the information required to support the request. The goal of these proposed changes is to reduce the size and technical complexity of these requests and streamline NRC review by focusing on the most safety-significant information. As part of this proposed rule package, the NRC is issuing draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DUWP-ISG-04, “Requirements for the Initiation of Decommissioning for Nuclear Materials Facilities,” to provide additional considerations for licensees developing an extension request in accordance with the proposed regulations.
Additionally, the proposed rule would require the request include a timeframe for which the licensee will resume principal activities, which will not exceed 36 months from the date of notification that principal activities ceased under the license or in a separate building or outdoor area, as well as a commitment that the licensee will provide notification to the NRC if principal activities do not resume within the specified timeframe. The NRC is proposing the 36-month maximum timeframe for extension because, beyond 3 years, there is increased uncertainty in the licensee's specific business projections and decreased ability to project foreseeable shifts in the nuclear industry and free market. Moreover, NRC routine inspections for nuclear materials facilities are on a 1- to 5-year periodicity, ensuring that each licensee would be inspected at least once between the initial 36-month period of no principal activities and a maximum of 36 additional months of inactivity during the extension period.
Currently, to request relief from the initiation of decommissioning and decommissioning planning requirements under §§ 30.36(f), 40.42(f), 70.38(f), or 72.54(f)(1), a licensee must submit a request to extend initiation 30 days prior to the notification date required by paragraph (d). In essence, a licensee must develop and submit the request for extension to the notification and timely decommissioning requirement before making such notification. The NRC recognizes that this brief timeframe may not allow for licensees to develop and submit adequate documentation to support the extension request. Additionally, if a licensee was in violation of the notification requirement pursuant to §§ 30.36(d), 40.42(d), 70.38(d), or 72.54(d), as applicable, it would have missed the opportunity for a request to delay initiation of decommissioning, as well.
The proposed rule would allow more time for licensees to develop and submit a request to delay the initiation of decommissioning activities. The changes proposed also include an option for licensees to indicate the intent to request a delay in the initiation of decommissioning as part of the notification required by §§ 30.36(d), 40.42(d), 70.38(d), or 72.54(d), as applicable. Then, a licensee must submit the request to delay the initiation of decommissioning 45 days later. This would allow for licensees to take advantage of the full 60 days
To increase efficiency, NRC is proposing to include all timeliness requirements related to the initiation of decommissioning and decommissioning planning in the proposed §§ 30.36(d), 40.42(d), 70.38(d), and 72.54(d). This would allow a licensee to request an extension to any of the timelines in these provisions by using the straightforward process described in proposed paragraph (f) of §§ 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54. The proposal is intended to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden by limiting the number of extension requests submitted and reviewed by NRC and streamline the request for extensions to the initiation of decommissioning and decommissioning planning timeliness requirements without compromising the NRC's ability to properly regulate licensed material when principal activities have ceased. For licensees that are required to submit a decommissioning plan, the NRC is specifically seeking stakeholder feedback in Section VII, “Specific Request for Comment: Decommissioning Timeliness,” on the applicability and usefulness of the proposed streamlined approval of alternate schedule requests in paragraph (f) of the §§ 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54. NRC is evaluating potential alternative approaches to streamline alternate schedule requests to ensure the regulations adequately address the unique public health and safety concerns associated with a delay in submitting the decommissioning plan while providing for a streamlined process, where feasible.
The proposed rule offers several changes to the decommissioning regulations. For nuclear reactor, nonpower, or utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR parts 50, 52, or 53, the proposed changes focus on the requirement to complete decommissioning in a timely manner and the process to request an extension to the required decommissioning timeframe. The proposed revisions to §§ 50.82(a)(3), 50.82(b)(4)(i), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) would remove the criteria that exemptions to timely completion of decommissioning may be approved “only when necessary to protect public health and safety.” Because the requirements would not have criteria for exemption, exemptions would be governed by the specific exemptions process §§ 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080, broadening the scope of factors that NRC may consider in its approval of a specific exemption for licensees to delay completion of decommissioning beyond the required timeframe. This rule does not propose to amend the required timeline to complete decommissioning nor any requirements related to the beginning of the decommissioning process (
The NRC continues to support the position noted in the final rule, “Amendments Specifying Licensee Responsibility for Nuclear Materials and Procedures for Termination of Specific Licenses,” that all nuclear facilities should be decommissioned as soon as practical (48 FR 32324, July 15, 1983). In a 1988 final rule, “General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,” (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988), the NRC's analysis demonstrated that a timeframe of 60 years was considered to be as soon as practical for reactor decommissioning. When considering decommissioning beyond the 60-year timeframe, in general, the NRC explained that there are a number of risks that must be carefully analyzed and mitigated. While the radiological risk of licensed material to the public decreases exponentially over time, long-lived activation products will remain in significant quantities that require continued monitoring and controls for the duration of the extension period. Although extended decommissioning periods benefit from natural radioactive decay, they do not eliminate the need for robust health and safety programs to properly manage remaining nuclear material from potentially migrating through the environment while remaining in safe storage. NRC continues to support the position that the 60-year period after permanent cessation of operations is sufficient for most facilities to complete decommissioning. It should not be common for licensees to have a site-specific condition that rises to the level of requesting an exemption from the requirement to complete decommissioning in a timely manner.
However, as the current regulations recognize, certain site-specific conditions, such as the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site, may make it impractical to decommission within 60 years. For example, decommissioning one permanently shutdown reactor unit while another unit remains operational may present safety and environmental challenges that must be carefully considered, especially if the two units are physically located close to one another and/or share common infrastructure. Delaying decommissioning of a permanently shutdown reactor may support continued operations of the existing reactor fleet for licensees that have multiple reactors at one site. The NRC has long recognized that the presence of other nuclear facilities at a site is a site-specific factor that can impact a licensee's capability to complete decommissioning within the 60-year timeframe. However, the current process to request an exemption is nebulous, burdensome, and overly conservative without providing commensurate safety benefits for the public.
The proposed rule seeks to remedy this by simplifying and broadening the criteria for requesting an alternative schedule for decommissioning and aligning the request with the well-established specific exemption process familiar to NRC, licensees, and the public.
To reduce administrative and resource burden on the nuclear power reactor industry and the NRC, this proposed rule would amend the regulation to leverage the existing, well-understood “Specific exemptions” process in §§ 50.12, 52.7, and 53.080. The proposed rule would retain the requirement to complete decommissioning with 60 years of permanent cessation of operations and move the criteria for requesting an alternative decommissioning schedule from §§ 50.82(a)(3), 52.110(c), and 53.1070(c) to the proposed specific exemption provision in §§ 50.12(a)(2)(vi) and 53.080(b)(6). The proposed rule does not amend 10 CFR 52.7 because, unless other criteria are provided for in part 52, specific exemptions for requirements in part 52 are governed by § 50.12. Because the requirements for an alternate decommissioning schedule are proposed to be removed from § 52.110(c), those requests would now be handled under § 50.12. Thus, under the proposed rule, requests for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years by reactor facilities licensed
In addition to moving these requests into the well-established specific exemption process, the proposed rule would also increase clarity and flexibility by removing the specific examples of site-specific factors currently listed in the regulations (
Similarly, the proposed rule would amend § 50.82(b)(4)(i) to remove specific timeliness criteria for decommissioning and include similar criteria in § 50.12(a)(2) in order to improve efficiency in reviews where safety is not adversely impacted. Currently, nonpower production and utilization facilities (NPUFs) are required to decommission without significant delay. Because the proposed rule would add a special circumstance for which a licensee may request to delay decommissioning, licensees may leverage the existing, well-understood § 50.12 process to request exemption from this requirement. In this way, NRC intends to streamline its reviews of exemption requests for NPUFs to delay decommissioning by pursuing SAFSTOR in certain cases.
The NRC is seeking advice and recommendations from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC is particularly interested in comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following:
1. Does the Specific Exemptions process in §§ 50.12 and 53.080 provide the most efficiency for reactor, nonpower, and utilization facility licensees to request extensions to the timely decommissioning requirements while presenting no undue risk to public health and safety? Is there additional information NRC could provide to increase clarity in this approach? Are there unintended consequences to this approach? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed?
2. Are there additional site-specific factors that may affect a reactor or NPUFs licensee's capability to complete decommissioning in a timely manner that NRC should consider in its guidance? Provide why the NRC should consider this factor as a substantial reason that a licensee could not complete decommissioning in a timely manner.
3. What NRC oversight activities (
1. Are there other factors that NRC should consider in determining an appropriate timeframe for which a licensee may conduct no principal activities before triggering the initiation of decommissioning? Provide the basis for your response.
2. Are the other enhancements to the requirements for the initiation of decommissioning that the NRC should consider to improve regulatory clarity and reduce administrative burden? Should the NRC consider additional guidance or other outreach options?
The NRC is proposing to restructure paragraph (f) in §§ 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54 to create a single, streamlined process for requesting exemptions from any timeliness requirement in paragraph (d) of those same sections, including extensions to the period of no principal activities and alternate schedules for submitting decommissioning plans (DPs). This approach consolidates multiple similar exemption processes into one risk-informed process focused on safety-significant elements, reducing administrative burden for both licensees and NRC. The proposed paragraph (f) contains specific information requests and commitments that were adapted from the evaluation criteria in Section 2.6 of NUREG-1757 Vol. 3 to focus reviews of such extension requests to the safety-related elements.
1. Are there additional information elements NRC should consider in extension requests that may be supplemental to the information requests and commitments included in the proposed (f)(1)-(5) of proposed §§ 30.36, 40.42, 70.38, and 72.54? Provide a basis for your response.
2. Do the proposed requirements in paragraph (f) to request delays in the initiation of decommissioning, in general, adequately address the request to submit a DP on an alternate schedule (
3. Are there other enhancements to the streamlined extension process that the NRC should consider to increase flexibility and ensure usefulness and applicability for licensees to reduce the number of licensees that request a license amendment for a “storage only” license out of necessity? Provide a basis for your response. Are there unintended consequences? If so, what are the unintended consequences, and how should they be addressed?
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would affect a number of “small entities” as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810). However, as indicated in the draft regulatory analysis available under the “Availability of Documents” section, the proposed amendments, if promulgated, would not have a significant negative economic impact on the affected small entities.
Any small entity subject to this regulation that determines, because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse economic impact should notify the Commission of this opinion in a comment that indicates—
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would impose a significant economic burden on the licensee as compared to the economic burden on a larger licensee;
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities;
(c) The benefits that would accrue or the detriments that would be avoided if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the licensee;
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individual or group; and
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still adequately protect public health and safety.
Comments should be submitted as indicated under the
The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule would not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in the NRC's backfitting provisions in §§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76, all titled “Backfitting,” or affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The reasons for this conclusion for the changes related to in situ recovery and decommissioning timelines are discussed below.
The class of licensees subject to this rulemaking are applicants for a new ISR facility license or current ISR facility licensees that submit an application for a license amendment for a new wellfield within a licensed ISR facility or a new production unit within an operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, the application for which is submitted after the effective date of this rule. The rulemaking would also revise the MCLs for hazardous constituents in all uranium mills (conventional or ISR) to those provided in EPA regulations under 40 CFR. This class of licensees would be regulated in accordance with 10 CFR part 40, which contains no backfitting provisions.
The proposed rule would extend the timeframe for notifications and allow flexibility for initiation of decommissioning for materials facilities, as well as streamline the process to request exemptions from decommissioning requirements, thereby reducing the regulatory burden on licensees. Specifically, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 would restructure the regulatory requirements in paragraphs (d) of the applicable sections to separate the four criteria that trigger notification to NRC from the licensee actions that must be taken to initiate decommissioning. The proposed rule would also extend the period of no principal activities from 24 months to 36 or 48 months and extend the time to request a delay of initiation of decommissioning from 30 days prior to notification to 45 days after notification required by paragraph (d). Finally, the revisions to 10 CFR 50.12 and 53.080 would broaden the scope of factors that NRC may consider in its review for a request for a specific exemption for power reactors and NPUFs to delay completion of decommissioning. The proposed changes would not constitute backfitting because the proposed changes would provide non-mandatory relaxations of current requirements. Licensees could continue to comply with the current requirements and satisfy the proposed rule.
For these reasons, the proposed rule would not meet the definition of “backfitting” under § 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76, or affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52.
This proposed rule also includes the draft guidance documents described in section XIX, “Availability of Guidance,” These documents if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in § 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76 or affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52 because the guidance would not inextricably affect activities of licensees that are within the scope of the backfitting or issue finality provisions. The guidance would not impose new or modified requirements on existing licensees, applicants, or certificate holders that are within the scope of a backfitting or issue finality provision.
The NRC seeks to minimize potential negative consequences resulting from the cumulative effects of regulation (CER). The NRC believes that the deregulatory impacts of this rulemaking activity are unlikely to cause implementation challenges for stakeholders. In addition, during the pendency of this rulemaking, the NRC is deprioritizing issuance of regulatory actions that might influence the implementation date for the new rule requirements (
To fully understand any potential CER implications that could result from this rulemaking, the NRC is asking the following questions. Response to these questions is voluntary and any input will be considered during development of the final rule.
1. The NRC is proposing an effective date that will be 30 days after the date of publication of a final rule. Does this provide sufficient time to implement the proposed requirements? Please provide a rationale for your response.
2. Are there unintended consequences related to this rulemaking and how should they be addressed? Please provide a rationale for your response.
3. Please comment on the NRC's cost and benefit estimates in the regulatory analysis that supports this proposed rule.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) and NRC's NEPA implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that the proposed rule is the type of action eligible for categorical exclusion because it meets criterion described in 10 CFR 51.22(a)(1), regarding actions that are administrative, procedural, or solely financial in nature. The amendments to part 40 clarify applicability to, and add definitions for ISR activities, as well as uranium mine waste remediation. The amendments to Criterion 5 and 14 of Appendix A to part 40 would establish regulations for the technical criteria necessary for groundwater protection for ISR activities. These criteria were previously described in guidance, established through the course of licensing practice, and enforced through license conditions. This proposed rule would codify these criteria in regulations. The NRC is not proposing to change any technical criteria, and accordingly, there would be no change to any environmental impact. The proposed rule would provide the basis for granting an ISR facility license but would not, by its own operation, provide a license for ISR-related activities. Any licensing action that specifically authorizes activities pursuant to these amendments would involve an environmental analysis of the impacts of such activities at the time of the licensing action. Applicants would be required to demonstrate compliance with relevant NRC or Agreement State regulations before they can receive an ISR facility operating license.
Amendments to 50.12; 50.82; 52.110; 53.080; 53.1070 would modify the procedures for filing and reviewing requests for various decommissioning activities. These amendments would not authorize any site-specific action on the part of the NRC or licensee. Any licensing action that specifically authorizes activities pursuant to these amendments would involve an environmental analysis of the impacts of such activities at the time of the licensing action. In addition, amendments to 30.36; 40.42; 70.38; 72.54 would amend reporting requirements in these regulations.
The agency action, therefore, belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the actions within the category do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? Please explain your response.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate? Please explain your response.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? Please explain your response.
4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance package and proposed rule are available in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document or may be viewed free of charge by contacting the NRC's Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to
You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information collection(s), including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by the following methods:
Submit comments by October 13, 2026.
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following are E.O.s that are related to this proposed rule:
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NRC submitted this proposed rule to OIRA for review. The NRC is required to conduct an economic analysis in accordance with section 6(a)(3)(B) of E.O. 12866. More can be found in the regulatory analysis document, which is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
NRC has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154.
This action is a deregulatory action as defined by E.O. 14192. Details on the estimated costs of proposed rule can be in the regulatory analysis, which is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
E.O. 14270, “Zero-Based Regulatory Budgeting to Unleash American Energy,” requires the NRC to insert a conditional sunset date into all new or amended NRC regulations provided the regulations are (1) promulgated under the AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA); (2) not statutorily required; and (3) not part of the NRC's permitting regime. The NRC determined that the regulatory changes proposed in this rulemaking are part of the NRC's permitting regime. Therefore, the NRC views this rulemaking to be outside the scope of Executive Order 14270 and did not insert conditional sunset dates for the regulatory changes in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule includes Federal regulations that, if adopted, would be enforceable by criminal penalty, as authorized by Section 223 of the AEA. Therefore, per E.O. 14294, those regulations constitute “criminal regulatory offenses.”
For the purposes of Section 223 of the AEA, the NRC is issuing this proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72, under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA, except as noted in §§ 30.64(b), 40.82(b), 50.111(b), 52.203(b), § 53.9010(b), 70.92(b), and 72.86(b). The applicability of criminal penalties to regulations in parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72 is set forth in §§ 30.64, 40.82, 50.111, 52.203, § 53.9010, 70.92, and 72.86. Willful violations of the parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70, and 72 regulations, other than those listed in §§ 30.64(b), 40.82(b), 50.111(b), 52.203(b), § 53.9010(b), 70.92(b), and 72.86(b) (including as updated by this proposed rule), would be subject to criminal enforcement.
The working group involved in the preparation of this proposed rule included two representatives from the Organization of Agreement States. The rule was shared with the Standing Committee for Compatibility.
On the basis of the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the
Compatibility Category A are those program elements that include basic radiation protection standards and scientific terms and definitions that are necessary to understand radiation protection concepts. Compatibility Category A program elements adopted by an Agreement State should be essentially identical to those of the NRC to provide uniformity in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis.
Compatibility Category B pertains to a limited number of program elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis. For Compatibility Category B, the Agreement State program element shall be essentially identical to that of NRC.
Program elements in Compatibility Category C include those program elements that are important for an Agreement State to have in order to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a national basis. An Agreement State program shall embody the essential objectives of the Category C program elements. Under Category C, Agreement State program elements may be more restrictive than NRC program elements; however, they should not be so restrictive as to prohibit a practice authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as
Compatibility Category D are those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and are not required to be adopted by Agreement States for purposes of compatibility. An Agreement State has the flexibility to adopt and implement program elements within the State's jurisdiction that are not addressed by the NRC or that are not required for compatibility (
Compatibility Category NRC are those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to the Agreement States under the AEA, or provisions of title 10 of the
Category H&S program elements embody the basic health and safety aspects of the NRC's program elements. Although H&S program elements are not required for purposes of compatibility, they do have particular health and safety significance. The Agreement State must adopt the essential objectives of such program elements to maintain an adequate program.
The proposed rule would be a matter of compatibility between the NRC and the Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among Agreement State and NRC requirements. The compatibility (A, B, C, D, and NRC) and adequacy (H&S) categories are designated in the following tables:
The NRC is proposing that the new definitions in part 40 be classified as Compatibility Category B or C. These definitions provide information that would be essential to the common understanding beyond the plain dictionary meaning and as such, a State's program element should essentially be identical to the NRC's program (for Category B) or adopt the essential objectives of the program (for Category C). To be included in Category B, the NRC determined that these definitions apply to activities that cross jurisdictional boundaries and should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis for regulating ISR facilities. To be included in Category C, the NRC determined that these definitions are important for an Agreement State to have in order to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in regulating agreement material on a national basis for regulating ISR facilities.
The NRC is proposing to change the compatibility category of 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A for Criterion 5 and 6 from Category C to Category B. These criteria in part 40, Appendix A, contain the groundwater and stabilization and control of material requirements that must be achieved prior to license termination of uranium mills. Under the Agreement State Policy Statement, Category B “pertains to a limited number of program elements that cross jurisdictional boundaries and that should be addressed to ensure uniformity of regulation on a nationwide basis.” In Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for Agreement State Programs,” the NRC defines “cross jurisdictional” with respect to Category B as “a practice or licensed activity that necessitates identical requirements to ensure an orderly regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of agreement material between all Agreement States and NRC jurisdictions.”
On January 29, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency.” The E.O. declares a national energy emergency and instructs heads of agencies to “identify and exercise lawful emergency and other authorities available to facilitate the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources.” On that same day, the President also issued E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy.” The E.O. sets forth several U.S. policies, including “to protect the United States's economic and national security and military preparedness by ensuring that an abundant supply of reliable energy is readily accessible in every State and territory of the Nation.” Subsequently, on May 23, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which discusses the
The domestic milling of uranium is an essential part of the nuclear fuel cycle and, therefore, important to national security, consistent with the polices set forth in the above E.O.s. Criterion 5 to Appendix A establishes applicable groundwater protection standards during operations and prior to the end of closure. Criterion 6 establishes additional requirements for the stabilization and control of material prior to the end of closure. As uranium milling occurs in multiple jurisdictions, it is important for a consistent approach and understanding of license termination criteria nationwide. Further, a consistent approach is essential to the overall regulatory framework for domestic uranium milling and, therefore, important to the development and growth of domestic uranium milling and to national security, consistent with the policies in the above E.O.s. Accordingly, the NRC is proposing changing Criterion 5 and 6 to Category B as the activity necessitates identical requirements to ensure an orderly regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of material between all Agreement States and NRC jurisdictions.
Importantly, the NRC is not proposing that Criteria 5 and 6 are matters relating to common defense and security such that they would be exclusively regulated by the NRC. Rather, the national security considerations and Administration's priorities expressed in the above E.O.s. underpin the NRC's proposal that designate license termination for uranium milling activities as Category B as a practice or licensed activity that necessitates identical requirements to ensure an orderly regulatory pattern for the use and regulation of Agreement State material between all Agreement States and NRC jurisdictions.
The remainder of the proposed rule for ISR is classified as Compatibility Category “C” for those States with authority to regulate uranium milling activities and Compatibility Category “D” for those States without such authority. Those States with authority to regulate uranium milling activities should adopt the essential objectives to avoid conflicts, duplications, or gaps. For those States that do not have authority over uranium milling activities, compatibility is not required for Category D regulations.
In this proposed rule, the NRC is proposing to clarify that the essential objective of §§ 30.36(d), 40.42(d), and 70.38(d) is for licensees to provide timely notification of the circumstances that trigger decommissioning and to promptly begin decommissioning or submit a decommissioning plan, as required. The state has flexibility in the administration and requirements for decommissioning timeliness and would not need to revise their current program to remain compatible with the proposed revision to §§ 30.36(d), 40.42(d), and 70.38(d). In addition, NRC is proposing to change the combability designation of 40.42(f) and 70.38(f) from Category H&S to Compatibility Category D. These requirements provide an administrative pathway for granting a delay or postponement of initiating decommissioning, which states are not required to offer, therefore, they more appropriately align with the Compatibility Category D designation. This proposed change also aligns with the Compatibility Category of 30.36(f), which contains identical language to 40.42(f) and 70.38(f), and is currently classified as Compatibility Category D.
The NRC invites comment on the compatibility category designations in the proposed rule and suggests that commenters refer to Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for Agreement State Programs,” and its Handbook for more information. The NRC notes that, like the rule text, the compatibility category designations can change between the proposed rule and final rule, based on comments received and Commission decisions regarding the final rule. The NRC encourages anyone interested in commenting on the compatibility category designations in any manner to do so during the comment period.
The NRC is issuing draft guidance for implementation of the proposed requirements in this rulemaking. The draft guidance is available in ADAMS as described in the Availability of Documents section. When finalized, the documents will provide stakeholders with guidance for implementing the final requirements contemplated by this proposed rule. You may submit comments on the draft regulatory guidance by the methods outlined in the
Current guidance on ISR is provided in NUREG-1569, “Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications.” The supplemental guidance is intended for use by applicants, licensees, Agreement States, and the NRC staff and incorporates the proposed changes into an approach and method acceptable for implementing the requirements of the regulations. It includes guidance concerning an application for, and the licensing, operation, and decommissioning of, a new ISR facility, a new wellfield within a licensed ISR facility, or a new production unit within an operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, the application for which is submitted after the effective date of the final rule.
The draft supplemental guidance is in a markup format to the NRC's existing guidance and reflects the provisions in this proposed rule. Comments on the draft supplemental guidance may be submitted by the methods provided in section I, “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments,” of this document. The draft supplemental guidance is available as indicated under section XVIII, “Availability of Documents,” of this document. The NRC plans to incorporate the final supplemental guidance into the next comprehensive revision of NUREG-1569.
The draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) for nuclear materials facilities, DUWP-ISG-04, is intended for use by licensees, Agreement States, and the NRC staff. It provides guidance and references for the updated process to request an extension to the initiation of decommissioning requirements. Specifically, the guidance includes examples of legitimate business needs that could be used to justify an extension. This guidance is not meant to be exhaustive and should be used to supplement existing guidance on the notification requirements for the initiation of decommissioning, including but not limited to NUREG-1757 Vol. 3, Rev. 1.
The draft ISG for nuclear reactor facilities, DUWP-ISG-05, is intended for use by licensees and the NRC staff. It provides guidance and references for the updated exemption process governed by 10 CFR 50.12 or 53.080, as appropriate. The draft ISG includes site-specific factors that NRC considers acceptable for an alternate decommissioning schedule request, as well as a discussion of reasonable mitigation for each factor. Lastly, the guidance provides considerations for licensees to ensure site safety for the duration of the extension period in accordance with the proposed regulations.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Criminal penalties, Exports, Government contracts, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium, Whistleblowing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Emergency planning, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, Issue finality, Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Construction permit, Combined license, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Inspection, Intergovernmental relations, Limited work authorization, Manufacturing license, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Operating license, Penalties, Prototype, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification, Training programs.
Classified information, Criminal penalties, Emergency medical services, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material, Whistleblowing.
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR part 30, 40, 50, 52, 53, 70 and 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 81, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2111, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
The revisions read as follows:
(d)(1) Consistent with § 30.6, each licensee must provide notification to the NRC in writing within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the following and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2) of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The license has expired pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section; or
(ii) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements; or
(iii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted for a period of 36 months; or
(iv) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 36 months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the licensee must—
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this section, or
(ii) Immediately begin decommissioning its site, or any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity so that the building or outdoor area is suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, or
(iii) Within 12 months, submit a decommissioning plan, if required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and begin decommissioning upon approval of that plan.
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 81, 83, 84, 122, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234, 274, 275 (42 U.S.C. 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2152, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2022); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, sec. 104 (42 U.S.C. 7914); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
The revisions read as follows:
(d)(1) Consistent with § 40.5, each licensee must provide notification to the NRC in writing within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the following and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2) of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The license has expired pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section; or
(ii) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements; or
(iii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted for a period of 48 months; or
(iv) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 48 months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the licensee must—
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this section, or
(ii) Immediately begin decommissioning its site, or any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity so that the building or outdoor area is suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, or
(iii) Within 12 months, submit a decommissioning plan, if required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and begin decommissioning upon approval of that plan.
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
The revisions and addition are as follows:
The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used in this appendix:
I. * * *
Applicability to ISR facility applicants and licensees. The preamble paragraph to Criterion 5, paragraphs 5B(1)(b) and 5B(2)-(6), and Criteria 5C-5D, 7, 7A, 9, 13, and 14 apply to an application for, and the licensing, operation, and decommissioning of, a new ISR facility, a new wellfield within a licensed ISR facility, or a new production unit within an operating wellfield of a licensed ISR facility, the application for which is submitted after [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE
5B(1)—This criterion provides groundwater protection standards for conventional mills and ISR facilities.
(a) For conventional mills, uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to conform to the following secondary groundwater protection standard: hazardous constituents entering the groundwater from a licensed site must not exceed the specified concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance during the compliance period. Specified concentration limits are those limits established by the Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. The Commission will also establish the point of compliance and compliance period on a site-specific basis through license conditions and orders. The objective in selecting the point of compliance is to provide the earliest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous constituents to the groundwater. The point of compliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of groundwater contamination on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area. The Commission will identify hazardous constituents, establish concentration limits, set the compliance period, and may adjust the point of compliance if needed to accord with developed data and site information as to the flow of groundwater or contaminants, when the detection monitoring program established under Criterion 7A indicates leakage of hazardous constituents from the disposal area.
(b) For ISR facilities, uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to conform to the following groundwater protection standard: hazardous constituents entering the groundwater from a production unit in a wellfield, at the point of compliance, must not exceed the specified concentration limits established by the Commission as indicated in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion. The Commission will also establish the point of compliance and compliance period on a site-specific basis pursuant to Criterion 14. The Commission will identify hazardous constituents, establish concentration limits, and may adjust the point of compliance if needed to accord with developed data and site information as to the flow of groundwater or licensee introduced contaminants, for the detection monitoring program established under criterion 7A and the additional ISR-specific monitoring requirements established under Criterion 14 to detect migration of hazardous constituents from a production unit in a wellfield.
5B(2)—For ISR facilities, a constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion only when the constituent meets all three of the tests in criterion 14(b)(2) of this appendix. For conventional mills, a constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion only when the constituent meets all three of the following tests:
(a) * * *
5B(5) * * *
(b) The maximum contaminant level for that constituent as set forth in Criterion 5C, provided that the background level is below the value listed; or
5C—The maximum contaminant levels for hazardous constituents are provided in the tables in 40 CFR 141.61(a) and (c) and 40 CFR 141.62(b), or in 40 CFR 141.66(b), (c), and (e) or, if the constituent is not listed in the table of the aforementioned regulations, the respective value given in Table 1 in 40 CFR 264.94.
VI. Additional Technical Criteria for ISR Operations
(a)
(1) Publicly available subsurface information and site-specific drilling and testing data, including, but not limited to, cuttings and core logging, downhole geophysical logging, aquifer pumping tests, and one year of quarterly groundwater quality sampling for radiological and nonradiological analytes. The data, which can incorporate existing information, must adequately identify and provide the location of all targeted ore bodies, as well as characterize regional and site-specific hydrostratigraphy and hydraulic parameters for the production unit and all appropriate aquifers and aquitards. A geological and hydrological conceptual model of the site must be presented. Additionally, the characterization must include all pertinent geologic structures, such as folds, faults, and the strike/dip of bedding, as well as nearby wells, mines, quarries, and related/similar infrastructure which have the potential to influence site hydrogeology; and
(2) Documentation of the characterization and suitability evaluation in appropriately scaled maps, hydrogeologic cross sections, graphs, charts, tables, and other types of data presentation using professional and industry standard reporting.
(b)
(1) Wellfield pre-operational characterization package. The licensee must provide the NRC with a submittal summarizing the characterization of an individual wellfield package prior to the injection of lixiviant (after issuance of a license). The submittal must demonstrate adequate hydraulic connection between injection and production wells within the production unit, as well as between the injection and production wells and the point of compliance wells in the aquifer immediately adjacent to the production unit.
(i) Appropriately scaled maps showing the as-built locations and construction details of all wells installed to support this package submittal, including but not limited to: point of compliance baseline sampling and all aquifer pumping test(s) related wells;
(ii) Comprehensive geologic and hydrologic cross sections across the wellfield package area including pertinent hydrostratigraphic, groundwater elevation, and related geologic and hydrologic data are required in the licensee's submittal;
(iii) Descriptions of all aquifer pumping tests used to determine hydraulic parameters for the wellfield package area;
(iv) The licensee's evaluation of the proposed operational and restoration performance of the wellfield package area; and
(v) Appropriately scaled maps including the final as-built locations for all injection, production, point of compliance, and all previously installed wells, in addition to all well logging and construction data, must be included in the first semi-annual report to NRC following completion of the wellfield construction.
(2) Identification of hazardous constituents. Pursuant to paragraph 5B(1)(b) of this appendix, the licensee must identify those radiological and nonradiological constituents that are hazardous and are reasonably expected to be present within the production unit or that may be expected to increase in concentration as a result of ISR operations. A radiological or nonradiological constituent becomes a hazardous constituent when the constituent meets all three of the following tests:
(i) The constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct material produced from ISR operations;
(ii) The constituent has been detected in the groundwater in an aquifer in the production unit; and
(iii) The constituent is listed in Criterion 13 of this appendix.
(3) Background hazardous constituent concentration levels. For each hazardous radiological and nonradiological constituent identified, the licensee must provide and submit an analysis of groundwater samples sufficient to establish the background hazardous constituent concentration levels to the NRC for approval pursuant to paragraph 5B(5)(a) of this appendix. Radiological and nonradiological constituent groundwater samples are required to be collected and analyzed to determine the background hazardous constituent concentration levels for each new wellfield, as follows:
(i) The licensee must identify the point of compliance wells in the production unit and the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit, as appropriate. The number, location, and screen interval of the point of compliance wells in the production unit and the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit must be shown to be sufficient to provide a representative sample of the background hazardous constituent concentration levels. The licensee must provide the number, location, and the screen interval of the point of compliance wells and the technical justification for their selection to the NRC for approval.
(ii) The licensee must obtain groundwater samples from all point of compliance wells in the production unit and in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit. The licensee must take, at a minimum of two weeks apart or at an interval approved by the NRC, at least four independent sets of groundwater samples from each point of compliance well.
(iii) For each wellfield, the licensee must use the groundwater sampling data collected pursuant to paragraph 14(b)(3)(ii) of this criterion to determine the background hazardous constituent concentration levels in the point of compliance wells in the production unit and in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit using generally accepted statistical techniques. The groundwater sampling data and the proposed background concentration levels for each hazardous constituent at the point of compliance wells in the production unit and in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit, and the technical justification for their selection, must be submitted for NRC approval.
(4) Indicator constituents. In order to detect the potential migration of byproduct material into groundwater surrounding the production unit in each wellfield, the licensee must select a minimum of three indicator constituents at all point of compliance wells in the aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit and determine the numerical upper control limit for each indicator constituent. Licensees can utilize a different number of indicator constituents based on site-specific factors with NRC approval. The licensee must obtain groundwater samples and analyze the indicator constituents from each point of compliance well. The licensee must take, at a minimum of two weeks apart or at an interval approved by the NRC, at least four independent sets of groundwater samples from each point of compliance well before wellfield operations begin. The licensee must use generally accepted statistical techniques to determine the upper control limits. The proposed indicator constituents and the upper control limits for each indicator constituent must be submitted for NRC approval. Licensees can propose a different number of samples for determining upper control limits based on site-specific conditions for NRC approval, provided that generally accepted statistical techniques are used and remain valid.
(5) Wellfield restoration plan. A wellfield restoration plan must be submitted for NRC approval. The wellfield restoration plan will be evaluated on whether it provides reasonable assurance that the NRC-approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in paragraph 5B(5)(a) or (b) of this appendix will be met after restoration in the production unit is completed. Each wellfield restoration plan must identify hazardous constituents introduced by the licensee requiring remediation in the production units, as well as a discussion of the methods used to determine the estimated pore volumes required for restoration, the proposed remediation strategy, and the restoration schedule. The restoration and post-restoration groundwater monitoring plans, including monitoring parameters, well locations, and numerical limits, must also be provided in the submittal to the NRC.
(c)
(1) Injection and production wells must be cased and cemented to prevent the migration of byproduct material into or between aquifers, although the licensee may propose alternative methods to cementing for NRC approval. The casing and cement used in the construction of each newly drilled well must be designed for the life expectancy of the well. In determining and specifying casing and cementing requirements, the following factors must be considered:
(i) Depth to the production unit;
(ii) Injection wellhead pressure;
(iii) Hole size;
(iv) Size and grade of all casing strings, including wall thickness, diameter, nominal weight, length, joint specification, and construction material;
(v) Corrosiveness of lixiviant and byproduct material;
(vi) Lithology of injection and confining units; and
(vii) Type and grade of cement.
(2) Appropriate well logs and other tests must be conducted during the drilling and construction of new injection and production wells. The well logs and tests appropriate to each well must be determined based on the intended well's function, depth, construction, proximity to other logged wells, and other unique characteristics, if present.
(3) For each wellfield, point of compliance wells must be located in the immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent aquifers to the production unit, as appropriate, in accordance with paragraph 14(b)(3)(i) of this criterion and constructed using standard monitoring well installation, completion, and development methods for the purpose of detecting excursions. If the wellfield operation may be affected by subsidence or catastrophic collapse, the point of
(d)
(1) Operating requirements.
(i) Injection and production wells must be operated to withdraw fluid in excess of that injected into the wellfield sufficient to ensure inward flow of groundwater into the wellfield so as to prevent migration of byproduct material outside the production unit. An inward hydraulic gradient must be maintained into the production unit at all times until post-restoration monitoring pursuant to paragraph 14(f)(1) of this criterion is initiated.
(ii) Injection between the outermost casing protecting adjacent aquifers and the well bore is prohibited.
(iii) Injection pressure at the wellhead must be calculated to ensure that the pressure in the production unit during injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures. In no case will wellhead injection pressure initiate fractures in confining geologic units or cause migration of byproduct material into aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit.
(iv) Before a wellfield begins operation, the applicant or licensee must submit an operating plan for the wellfield containing the following elements:
(A) An operations program that ensures fluid pressures within the production unit remain safely below the minimum fracture pressure for the confining strata and the production unit;
(B) A well development program;
(C) An injection and production well operating plan that demonstrates an inward hydraulic gradient will be established and maintained in the production unit during operations and restoration until post-restoration monitoring commences;
(D) Contingency plans to address shut-ins or well failures so as to prevent the migration of byproduct material into aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit;
(E) The projected average and maximum daily rate and volume of lixiviant injected and production well fluid withdrawn;
(F) The projected average and maximum wellhead injection pressure;
(G) A qualitative analysis and ranges in concentrations of all lixiviant ingredients. The applicant or licensee may request that this information be characterized as proprietary information;
(H) Specifications for pipelines, wellfield header houses, and other related wellfield infrastructure to prevent byproduct material leakage to the uppermost aquifer; and
(I) Procedures to test and inspect pipelines, wellfield header houses, and other related wellfield infrastructure to detect leaks or other conditions that could lead to byproduct material leakage to the uppermost aquifer.
(2) Wellfield operation and restoration monitoring requirements. The licensee must comply with the following operational and restoration monitoring requirements in a wellfield:
(i) Continuous monitoring of injection pressure, or daily recording of injection pressure to demonstrate the injection pressure is below the maximum value for the production unit;
(ii) Continuous monitoring of injection and production well flow rates or daily recording of injection and production well flow rates or volumes to demonstrate that an inward hydraulic gradient is maintained in the production unit; and
(iii) At least twice per month, with a minimum of 10 days between sampling events, a sample must be taken for the approved indicator constituents in the point of compliance wells in aquifers immediately overlying, underlying and adjacent to the production unit for excursion detection.
(A) An excursion is detected if, in any point of compliance well, two or more indicator constituents exceed their upper control limits.
(B) If an excursion is detected, a second sample must be taken within 48 hours after results of the first analyses were received. If the second sample does not indicate that upper control limits were exceeded, a third sample must be taken within 48 hours after the second set of sampling data was acquired.
(C) If the second and third samples do not indicate that upper control limits are exceeded, the excursion is not confirmed. If either the second or third sample shows that the indicator constituent(s) exceed their upper control limits, an excursion is confirmed. After an excursion is confirmed, the point of compliance well must be placed in excursion status and reported pursuant to paragraph 14(d)(5)(ii) of this criterion.
(iv) If an excursion is confirmed and following the 7-day report required by paragraph 14(d)(5)(ii) of this criterion:
(A) The licensee must evaluate the cause of the excursion and take action to eliminate the excursion. An excursion in aquifers immediately overlying, underlying, and adjacent to the production unit can be deemed eliminated when all excursion indicator constituents are below their respective upper control limits for three consecutive samples for the indicator constituents until the excursion is eliminated. Licensees can propose different approaches for considering an excursion eliminated based on site-specific conditions. Different approaches would require NRC approval.
(B) The licensee must submit a written report describing the excursion event, efforts taken to eliminate the excursion, and the results within 60 days of the excursion confirmation.
(C) If the excursion is not eliminated in 60 days, corrective action must be initiated in accordance with paragraph 14(h)(1) of this criterion.
(3) Monitoring of pressure and flow rate on all injection wells on an individual well basis by wellfield manifold monitoring. Manifold pressure and flow rate monitoring may be used for wellfield operations having more than one injection well if these wells use a common manifold. Separate monitoring systems for each injection well are not required provided the applicant or licensee demonstrates that manifold monitoring is comparable to individual well monitoring.
(4) Uppermost aquifer monitoring requirements. For all surface and near surface ISR operations having the potential to contaminate the uppermost aquifer, the applicant must describe and the licensee must establish a program, to be approved by the NRC, to detect leaks or spills of byproduct material into the uppermost aquifer. Such a program must include commitments that any leak or spill of byproduct material will be adequately evaluated to ensure that the uppermost aquifer is not impacted. If byproduct material is confirmed to have leaked into the uppermost aquifer, the licensee must take corrective action in accordance with paragraph 14(h)(3) of this criterion.
(5) Reporting requirements. Licensees must meet the following reporting requirements:
(i) Semi-annual reports of results of the effluent monitoring required by 10 CFR 40.65 must be submitted to the NRC;
(ii) When an excursion is confirmed under paragraph 14(d)(2)(ii) of this criterion, a report must be made to the NRC within one business day, followed by submission of a written report to the NRC within seven calendar days from when the excursion is confirmed; and
(iii) If surface or near surface leakage or spills of byproduct material are detected in the uppermost aquifer, a report must be made to the NRC within one business day, followed by submission of a written report to the NRC within seven calendar days from when the leakage is detected in the uppermost aquifer.
(e)
(1) A well is deemed to have mechanical integrity if:
(i) There is no significant leak in the casing; and
(ii) There is no significant fluid movement into an aquifer through vertical channels adjacent to the injection well bore.
(2) One of the following methods must be used to verify the absence of significant leaks under paragraph 14(e)(1)(i) of this criterion:
(i) Following an initial pressure test, monitoring of the casing annulus pressure with sufficient frequency to be representative as approved by the NRC, while maintaining an annulus pressure different from atmospheric pressure measured at the surface; or
(ii) A pressure test with liquid or gas.
(3) Testing methods and alternative documentation requirements, such as those listed in 40 CFR 146.8(c), may be used to
(f)
In its evaluation of a proposed alternate concentration limit pursuant to paragraph 5B(5)(c) of this appendix, the NRC will consider the factors specified in paragraphs 5B(4) and 5B(6) of this appendix. An application for an alternate concentration limit shall be submitted as an amendment of a license in accordance with 10 CFR 40.44.
(1) Post-restoration monitoring.
(i) Following completion of restoration in a production unit, an NRC-approved post-restoration monitoring program must be implemented at the approved point of compliance wells in the wellfield restoration plan. The post-restoration monitoring program must include quarterly sampling at each approved point of compliance well for one year to analyze whether hazardous constituents exceed their approved concentration limits pursuant to paragraph 5B(5) of this appendix. The analysis must be performed on a well-by-well basis.
(ii) Post-restoration monitoring for each production unit is deemed complete when groundwater samples, collected quarterly from point of compliance wells, show that hazardous constituent concentration levels have remained below their approved concentration limits with no statistically significant exceedance for one year.
(iii) The licensee must notify the NRC in writing within 7 days if, during the post- restoration monitoring period, the collected samples show that concentrations of any of the monitored hazardous constituents at a point of compliance well has shown a statistically significant exceedance of its approved limit. The licensee must take corrective action in accordance with paragraph 14(h)(2) of this criterion.
(2) Wellfield restoration report. Following completion of the post-restoration monitoring program for each production unit in the wellfield, the licensee must submit a restoration report for NRC approval describing the wellfield restoration activities and results, including compliance with the NRC-approved hazardous constituent concentration limits in paragraph 5B(5) of this appendix and the post-restoration monitoring data demonstrating no statistically significant exceedance of the approved concentration limits for one year.
(g)
(1) Before any injection, production, or point of compliance well is plugged and abandoned, a wellfield plugging and abandonment plan must be submitted for NRC approval.
(2) Before abandoning injection, production, or point of compliance wells, or any other well associated with any corrective action taken pursuant to paragraph 14(h) of this criterion, the wells must be plugged in accordance with applicable state and underground injection control regulations.
(3) The plugging and abandonment plan must demonstrate adequate protection of aquifers.
(h)
(1) If an excursion is not eliminated within 60 days of confirmation, or an alternate time period approved by the NRC:
(i) The licensee must terminate injection of lixiviant into portions of the wellfield potentially contributing to the continuing excursion.
(ii) The licensee must conduct sampling to determine whether any hazardous constituent has exceeded their approved concentration limits at the point of compliance well with the confirmed excursion. If any hazardous constituent has exceeded its approved concentration limits, the licensee must characterize the extent of the contamination and take corrective action to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with the approved concentration limits.
(iii) The licensee must provide an increase to the financial surety for corrective action in accordance with paragraph 9(f)(4) of this appendix.
(iv) The corrective action must continue until the hazardous constituent concentration levels meet their approved concentration limits. The licensee must then provide a report for NRC approval describing the corrective action taken, the corrective action results and monitoring data that demonstrates that the hazardous constituents meet their approved concentration limits. If NRC confirms that the corrective action is completed, the additional surety requirements resulting from the excursion may be removed.
(2) If any hazardous constituent concentration level at a point of compliance well in the restored production unit shows a statistically significant exceedance of any approved hazardous constituent concentration limits during post-restoration monitoring and following the 7-day report required by paragraph 14(f)(1)(iii) of this criterion:
(i) The licensee must take corrective action to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with the approved concentration limits for all hazardous constituents.
(ii) Once corrective action is completed such that the hazardous constituent concentration levels meet their approved concentration limits, the licensee must provide a written report for NRC approval describing the corrective action taken, the corrective action results, and monitoring data that demonstrates that the hazardous constituents meet their approved concentration limits at the point of compliance wells in the production unit.
(iii) If the NRC determines that the licensee has not provided reasonable assurance that the corrective action for the exceedance was successful, the NRC may impose additional requirements for corrective action, operation, monitoring, or reporting as necessary. In addition, the NRC may require the licensee to restart the post- restoration monitoring at the affected point of compliance wells in the restored production unit by collecting quarterly samples which demonstrate no statistically significant exceedance of the approved concentration limits for any hazardous constituent for one year.
(3) If surface or near surface leakage or spills of source, lixiviant or byproduct material are detected in the uppermost aquifer and following the 7-day report required by paragraph 14(d)(5)(iii) of this criterion:
(i) The licensee must take corrective action to the extent necessary to achieve compliance with the approved concentration limits for all hazardous constituents.
(ii) The licensee must provide a written report describing the event, corrective action taken, and the corrective action results within 60 days, or an alternate time period approved by the NRC, of detection.
(iii) Once corrective action is completed and the hazardous constituent concentration levels meet their approved concentration limits, the licensee must provide a written report for the NRC approval describing the corrective actions taken and monitoring data that demonstrates that the hazardous constituents meet their approved concentration limits.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; ADVANCE Act of 2024, sec. 301 (42 U.S.C. 2133 note).
The addition reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the timely decommissioning requirement in § 50.82(a)(3), § 50.82(b)(4)(i), or § 52.110(c) for cases in which site-specific factor(s) affect the licensee's capability to complete decommissioning within that timeframe and the extension will not adversely affect site safety for the duration of the extension period; or
(a) * * *
(3) Decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The choice of the alternative for decommissioning with a description of activities involved. An alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decommissioning without significant delay.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 103, 104, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(c) Decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 103, 108, 122, 147, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Pub. L. 115-439, 132 Stat. 5571.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the timely decommissioning requirement in § 53.1070(c) for cases in which site-specific factor(s) affect the licensee's capability to complete decommissioning within that timeframe and the extension will not adversely affect public health and safety for the duration of the extension period; or
(c) Decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57(d), 108, 122, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 223, 234, 274, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077(d), 2138, 2152, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2273, 2282, 2021, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.21(g) also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Section 70.31 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 57(d) (42 U.S.C. 2077(d)).
Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Section 70.81 also issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 186, 187 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).
Section 70.82 also issued under Atomic Energy Act sec. 108 (42 U.S.C. 2138).
The revisions read as follows:
(d)(1) Consistent with § 70.5, each licensee must provide notification to the NRC in writing within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the following and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2) of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The license has expired pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section; or
(ii) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements; or
(iii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted for a period of 48 months; or
(iv) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 48 months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the licensee must—
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this section, or
(ii) Immediately begin decommissioning its site, or any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity so that the building or outdoor area is suitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements, or
(iii) Within 12 months, submit a decommissioning plan, if required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and begin decommissioning upon approval of that plan.
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
The revisions read as follows:
(d)(1) Consistent with § 72.4, each licensee must provide notification to the NRC in writing as required by § 72.42(b) or within 60 days of the occurrence of any of the following, and indicate which approach under paragraph (d)(2) of this section the licensee intends to pursue:
(i) The licensee has decided to permanently cease principal activities, as defined in this part, at the entire site or in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements; or
(ii) No principal activities under the license have been conducted for a period of 48 months; or
(iii) No principal activities have been conducted for a period of 48 months in any separate building or outdoor area that contains residual radioactivity such that the building or outdoor area is unsuitable for release in accordance with NRC requirements.
(2) When notification is made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the licensee must—
(i) Within 45 days, submit a request to delay initiation of decommissioning activities consistent with paragraph (f) of this section, or
(ii) Within 12 months, submit a final decommissioning plan and begin decommissioning upon approval of the plan.
(f) The Commission may grant a request to extend the time periods established in paragraph (d). The schedule for decommissioning set forth in paragraph (d) of this section may not commence until the Commission has made a determination on the request. The request must include the following, as applicable:
(1) Discussion of the business need for continued possession or authorization of licensed material or how the request is otherwise in the public interest.
(2) Discussion of the health and safety plan that will be in effect during the extension period.
(3) Discussion of the current decommissioning cost estimate and the potential for increased decommissioning costs if an extension of the time period is or is not approved.
(4) A timeframe for which principal activities will resume, which must not exceed 36 months from the date of notification as provided for in (d)(1)(iii) and (d)(1)(iv) of this section.
(5) A commitment that, should principal activities not resume within the timeframe specified in paragraph (f)(4), the licensee must provide notification to the NRC consistent with paragraph (d) of this section.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(b) The Secretary shall review existing regulations, guidance, and enforcement policies under the Act and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise them to strengthen protections for producers and ensure effective deterrence of prohibited conduct.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report assessing current participation in the State-Federal cooperative inspection programs, identifying remaining statutory or regulatory barriers to greater interstate market access for State-inspected products, and providing recommendations for action to address any such challenges.
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a report identifying Federal statutory provisions, as well as trade considerations, that restrict or prohibit State-inspected or custom exempt meat products from entering interstate commerce.
(d) The Secretary shall take actions as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to establish a Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers guaranteed loan program for small and regional beef processors to help these processors continue operation, expand their footprint, and increase diversity of animal proteins being processed.
(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 Agriculture.
(a) The Secretary of the Interior shall make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met, shall begin the process of delisting or downlisting them.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Assistant to the President and Director of Legislative Affairs, shall prepare and submit to the President a legislative recommendation to fully delist or downlist the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf under the ESA.
(c) Upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the ESA recovery criteria has been met with respect to the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall engage with States to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any State-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards for lethal takings of gray wolves and Mexican wolves to assist ranchers in combating predation.
(d) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider developing or amending their respective Departments' producer compensation regulations, evidentiary standards, and program handbooks, consistent with applicable law, to ensure that all depredation claims adjudicated by their respective Departments are consistently, accurately, and expeditiously assessed, including by setting adequate standards to investigate depredations by gray wolves and Mexican wolves and by considering additional factors beyond subcutaneous hemorrhaging when appropriate.
(e) The Secretary of the Interior shall consider amending regulations or providing additional guidance, consistent with applicable law, to revise the Department's criteria for authorizing lethal gray wolf and Mexican wolf removal and to enable greater emergency responsiveness, including precision targeting, for situations involving predator threats to human safety or threats to domestic livestock.
(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 Agriculture.