Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Joint interim final rule and request for comments.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (collectively, the Agencies) are jointly issuing and requesting public comment on an interim final rule to implement section 903 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The interim final rule raises the asset threshold for certain supervised institutions with less than $6 billion in total assets to qualify for an 18-month on-site examination cycle. The interim final rule also makes parallel changes to the Agencies' regulations governing the on-site examination cycle for U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, consistent with the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA).
The interim final rule is effective on September 14, 2026. Comments on the rule must be received by October 14, 2026.
Comments should be directed to:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
•
•
•
•
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available on the Board's website at
•
•
•
•
Section 903 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law on July 11, 2026, and amended section 10(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act)
The Agencies are issuing an interim final rule to implement the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act's amendments to section 10(d)(4) and 10(d)(10) of the FDI Act,
Section 10(d)(1) of the FDI Act generally requires the appropriate Federal banking agency for an IDI to conduct a full-scope, on-site examination of the IDI at least once during each 12-month period. With the enactment of section 903 of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, section 10(d)(4) of the FDI Act now authorizes the appropriate Federal banking agency to extend the on-site examination cycle for an IDI to at least once during an 18-month period if the IDI (1) has total assets of less than $6 billion; (2) is well capitalized;
In addition, section 7(c)(1)(C) of the IBA provides that a Federal or a State branch or agency of a foreign bank shall be subject to on-site examination by its appropriate Federal banking agency or State bank supervisor as frequently as a national or State bank would be subject to such an examination by the appropriate Federal banking agency.
The Agencies are adopting the interim final rule to implement the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act's amendments to sections 10(d)(4) and 10(d)(10) of the FDI Act. The interim final rule implements section 10(d)(4) of the FDI Act, as revised by the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, to increase, from $3 billion to $6 billion, the total asset threshold under which the Agencies may apply an 18-month on-site examination cycle for qualifying IDIs that have an “outstanding” composite condition.
The Agencies have determined that increasing the maximum total asset amount limitation for IDIs with a “good” composite condition to qualify for the 18-month examination cycle to less than $6 billion in total assets is consistent with principles of safety and soundness for IDIs. While extending the examination cycle has the potential to delay an agency's ability to detect deterioration in an IDI's financial condition, the Agencies do not expect that extending the examination cycle by six months for these small, well-rated IDIs with relatively simple risk profiles and no outstanding enforcement action or order would appreciably increase their risk of financial deterioration or failure. In addition, the Agencies will continue their off-site monitoring activities designed to identify new or increasing risks, which often include various Call Report-based analyses. This interim final rule also would not change the Agencies' existing authorities to examine IDIs that qualify for the 18-month examination cycle more frequently as necessary or appropriate, including those IDIs with a “good” composite rating.
In accordance with section 7(c)(1)(C) of the IBA,
The Agencies will continue to monitor IDIs and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks (collectively, financial institutions) in this asset range and the impact of the extended examination cycle.
The Agencies estimate that the interim final rule will increase the number of banks and savings associations that may be eligible for an extended 18-month examination cycle by approximately 188 (95 of which are supervised by the FDIC, 50 by the OCC, and 43 by the Board), bringing the total number of institutions that may qualify for an extended 18-month cycle to 4,016. This estimate includes the approximately 19 additional U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks that may be eligible (1 of which is supervised by the FDIC, 10 by the OCC, and 8 by the Board).
Financial institutions with total assets of $3 billion or more but less than $6 billion that are eligible for the 18-month examination cycle will realize costs savings and can utilize those costs savings in various ways. A potential reduction in examination activity is likely to enable those financial institutions' existing staff to allocate resources to other activities that could improve business-related outcomes, such as serving customers. These potential beneficial effects will vary from institution to institution depending upon the composition of staff supporting examinations, an institution's business activities, and the decisions of senior management. Therefore, they are difficult to accurately estimate.
As previously discussed, the Agencies believe that extending the examination cycle from 12 months to 18 months for these small financial institutions with relatively simple risk profiles should not appreciably increase their risk of financial deterioration or failure. The Agencies acknowledge that extending the examination cycles creates a longer window during which emerging problems could develop before being detected through an on-site examination. That said, the Agencies believe that the strict eligibility requirements as well as the Agencies' off-site monitoring activities should serve to minimize any such risks and associated costs.
Finally, qualifying financial institutions may incur modest one-time implementation costs such as those attributable to updating their compliance calendars, policies, and examination preparation schedules to reflect the new eligibility criteria and extended cycles. Nonetheless, such implementation costs are expected to be marginal and far outweighed by the ongoing cost savings from the less-frequent examination cycles for qualifying financial institutions.
The Agencies are issuing the interim final rule without prior notice, the opportunity for prior public comment, or the delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Agencies believe that the public interest is best served by aligning the Agencies' regulations with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act's amendments and implementing the increased total asset threshold as soon as possible. Immediate implementation will clarify requirements and reduce regulatory burden on certain small, well capitalized, and well managed financial institutions while also allowing the Agencies to better focus their supervisory resources on those financial institutions that may present capital, managerial, or other issues of supervisory concern. Because financial institutions and the Agencies must plan and prepare for examinations in advance, the Agencies believe that issuing the interim final rule would provide the certainty necessary for qualifying financial institutions and the Agencies to begin reorienting their planning and preparation, including scheduling examinations according to the new examination cycle period. In addition, the Agencies believe that providing a notice and comment period prior to issuance of the interim final rule is unnecessary because the Agencies do not expect public objection to the regulations being promulgated as they implement the relief provided for in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
The APA also requires a 30-day delayed effective date, except for (1) substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause.
While the Agencies believe there is good cause to issue the rule without advance notice and comment and with an immediate effective date, the Agencies are interested in the views of the public and request comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act
• Have the Agencies organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could they present the rule more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which sections should be changed?
• What other changes can the Agencies incorporate to make the rule easier to understand?
As a general matter, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, OMB determines whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule.
The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in—(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Individuals with disabilities, Minority businesses, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Women.
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Confidential business information, Consumer protection, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Flood insurance, Insurance, Investments, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Exports, Federal Reserve System, Foreign banking, Holding companies, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Credit, Foreign banking, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, U.S. investments abroad.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to amend part 4 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 161, 481, 482, 484(a), 1442, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1817(a), 1818, 1820, 1821, 1831m, 1831p-1, 1831o, 1833e, 1867, 1951
(b) * * *
(1) The bank or Federal savings association has total assets of less than $6 billion;
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Has total assets of less than $6 billion;
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends parts 208 and 211 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 24, 36, 92a, 93a, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338a, 371d, 461, 481-486, 601, 611, 1814, 1816, 1817(a)(3), 1817(a)(12), 1818, 1820(d)(9), 1833(j), 1828(o), 1831, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831r-1, 1831w, 1831x, 1835a, 1882, 2901-2907, 3105, 3310, 3331-3351, 3905-3909, 5371, and 5371 note; 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78I(b), 78
(b) * * *
(1) The bank has total assets of less than $6 billion;
12 U.S.C. 221
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Has total assets of less than $6 billion;
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board of Directors of the FDIC amends parts 337 and 347 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 375a(4), 375b, 1463, 1464, 1468, 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1819, 1820(d), 1821(f), 1828(j)(2), 1831, 1831f, 1831g, 5412.
(b) * * *
(1) The institution has total assets of less than $6 billion;
12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, 1828, 3103, 3104, 3105, 3108, 3109; Pub L. No. 111-203, section 939A, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (July 21, 2010) (codified 15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Has total assets of less than $6 billion;
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
By order of the Board of Directors,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
FAA revises certain regulations governing airman certification and incorporates three updated sport pilot practical test standards (PTS) by reference. The rule aligns the airman testing standards with newly adopted regulatory requirements in the
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “Additional Information” in the
Ethan Argenbright, General Aviation and Commercial Division/Testing Standards Section, AFS-810, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (405) 954-6404; email
FAA updates three PTS related to the certification of sport pilots and operation of light-sport category aircraft to address a conflict between regulations adopted by the MOSAIC final rule and language in three sport pilot PTS. The PTS establish the formal guidelines, standards, and criteria used by FAA Safety Inspectors and Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) to evaluate an applicant's suitability for an airman certificate, ensuring they demonstrate proficiency and can safely operate within the National Airspace System (NAS). These updates align the language in the sport pilot PTS identifying which aircraft can be used to satisfy practical test and proficiency check requirements under part 61 with the new sport pilot operational limits adopted in the MOSAIC final rule. FAA also makes non-substantive, conforming amendments to update minor terminology inconsistencies throughout these three PTS.
FAA updates from versions A to B, three sport pilot PTS listed in section 61.14, specifically; (a)(12) Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating PTS for Airplane Category; Rotorcraft Category, and Glider Category (FAA-S-8081-29A), (a)(13) Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating PTS for Lighter-Than-Air Category (FAA-S-8081-30A), and (a)(14) Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor PTS for Powered Parachute Category, Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category (FAA-S-8081-31A).
The rule aligns pilot certification standards in these three PTS with regulatory changes adopted by the MOSAIC final rule by replacing references to “light-sport aircraft” with “aircraft” to encompass aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements in new section 61.316. The performance limits and design requirements in section 61.316 expand the aircraft that sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating may operate, therefore necessitating revisions to the sport pilot PTS to reflect those expanded aircraft privileges. The changes in the PTS will reduce confusion between the current definition of “light-sport aircraft” in section 1.1, which will be removed by the MOSAIC final rule effective July 24, 2026, and future light-sport category aircraft, also as explained by the MOSAIC final rule. This rule also aligns practical test requirements for the certification of pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating seeking to add airplane privileges to their sport pilot certificate.
Based on comments received on the NPRM, FAA amends the proposed minimum recovery altitude in Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating PTS for Airplane Category; Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane, and Glider Category (FAA-S-8081-29B) from 1,000 to 1,500 feet AGL for stalls and slow flight tasks.
FAA expects no new costs to applicants for an initial certificate, rating, or privilege, or to existing airmen, because there are no substantive changes to the testing processes, areas of operation, or elements upon which airmen are currently tested in order to obtain a sport pilot certificate. FAA will incur some de minimis costs to make changes to the PTS and upload the updated versions to its website, but FAA does not anticipate any other costs to the agency because the process by which testing is conducted or the manner in which PTS and ACS are currently implemented is not changing. Although not attributable to this final rule, aligning the PTS with MOSAIC ensures consistent application of MOSAIC's not quantified benefits, such as increased safety from allowing sport pilots to train, test, and fly with larger and more varied aircraft.
The authority of FAA to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C. 106, which describes the authority of the Administrator of FAA. The scope of FAA's authority is further described in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs. This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate and revise regulations, rules, and other official publications related to aviation safety. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority granted to the Administrator in 49 U.S.C. 40113 (prescribing general authority of the Administrator of FAA with respect to aviation safety duties and powers to prescribe regulations) and §§ 44701 (general authority of the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security), 44702 (general authority of the Administrator to issue airman certificates), and 44703 (general authority of the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, an individual is qualified for and physically able to perform the duties related to the position authorized by the certificate). This rulemaking is within the scope of that authority.
On July 24, 2025 FAA published the MOSAIC final rule (90 FR 35218). The MOSAIC rule amended rules for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light-sport aircraft, which subsequently increased sport pilot privileges and expanded what aircraft sport pilots may operate. The MOSAIC final rule restructured certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft, which resulted in FAA removing the “light-sport aircraft” definition from section 1.1. As such, FAA adopted new performance limitations and design requirements for sport pilot operations in section 61.316. Although the new performance and design limitations in section 61.316, which expand the aircraft sport pilots may operate, became effective October 22, 2025, the “light-sport aircraft” definition in section 1.1 will remain effective until July 24, 2026.
On December 8, 2025 FAA published the
Specifically, FAA proposed to update three sport pilot PTS listed in section 61.14(a)(12) through (14):
• Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating PTS for Airplane Category; Rotorcraft Category, and Glider Category (FAA-S-8081-29A);
• Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Rating PTS for Lighter-Than-Air Category (FAA-S-8081-30A); and
• Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructor PTS for Powered Parachute Category, Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category (FAA-S-8081-31A).
The proposed rule sought to align pilot certification standards in these three PTS with regulatory changes adopted by the MOSAIC final rule by replacing references to “light-sport aircraft” as defined in section 1.1 (General definitions) with “aircraft” to encompass aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements in new section 61.316. The performance limits and design requirements in section 61.316 expand the aircraft that sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating may operate, therefore necessitating revisions to the sport pilot PTS to reflect those expanded privileges. The proposal also sought to align practical test requirements for the certification of pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating seeking to add airplane privileges to their sport pilot certificate.
In 2024, FAA published the
IBR is a mechanism that allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to publish rules in the
FAA received six comments from four individuals and two anonymous commenters on the NPRM. These comments related to:
• converting the PTS to ACS format;
• seeking clarification on whether a light-sport aircraft is required for a practical test prior to July 24, 2026;
• revising elements and tasks within the PTS;
• focusing on out of scope matters; and
• generally supporting the proposed changes.
Regulatory amendments of FAA to part 61 remain unchanged from the proposal. Based on comments received, FAA amends the proposed minimum recovery altitude in the Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot Flight Instructors Rating PTS for Airplane Category; Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane, and Glider Category (FAA-S-8081-29B) from 1,000 to 1,500 feet AGL for stalls and slow flight tasks.
FAA received six comments on this proposed rule from four individuals and two anonymous commenters. Many of the changes suggested were outside the scope of this rulemaking. No commenters opposed the proposed rule, nor did FAA receive any comments regarding the regulatory text proposed in the NPRM. In summary, FAA adopts the regulatory text as proposed with few revisions to the PTS themselves, as discussed in the subsequent sections of this preamble.
Two commenters questioned why FAA did not convert the PTS documents to an ACS format. The commenters stated that this change would enable the integration of key safety elements and awareness directly into each required task rather than as a separate area of interest as is presented in the PTS. The commenters further stated the purpose of the ACS is to improve safety awareness, including enhanced emphasis on aeronautical decision making, which would have been the perfect opportunity to make that change. The ACS is an enhanced version of the PTS, which adds task-specific knowledge and risk management elements to each PTS Area of Operation or Task. FAA is in the process of converting all PTS to ACS. For the purposes of this rulemaking, FAA revised the sport pilot PTS to align with language from the MOSAIC final rule in the most expeditious means available.
A commenter questioned whether a sport pilot applicant must train in aircraft that meet the performance limits and design requirement as stated in section 61.316 but must take a practical test in a “light-sport aircraft” due to “light-sport aircraft” remaining as a defined term until July 24, 2026. FAA notes the sport pilot PTS were revised to reflect the requirement to conduct practical tests in aircraft that meet the performance limits and design requirements in section 61.316.
A commenter recommended that the minimum recovery altitude in PTS, FAA-S-8081-29, Section 1: Sport Pilot Airplane (ASEL and ASES), VIII. Area of Operation: Slow Flight and Stalls, TASKs A, B, and C, element 2 “Selects an entry altitude consistent with safety, which allows the TASK to be completed no lower than 1,000 feet AGL” be amended from 1,000 feet AGL to 1,500 feet AGL. The commenter suggested the minimum recovery altitude of 1,000 feet AGL presented an increased level of risk during sport pilot training and testing and recommended 1,500 feet AGL as it aligns with the Private Pilot for Airplane Category Airman Certification Standards, FAA-ACS-6C, Area of Operation VII. Slow Flight and Stalls, Tasks A, B, and C.
FAA agrees with the commenter and increases the minimum recovery altitude in the sport pilot PTS to 1,500 feet AGL because the increased minimum recovery altitude increases risk mitigation and increases safety during the conduct of slow flight and stalls conducted during practical tests in single-engine aircraft meeting the requirements of section 61.316. The increased minimum recovery altitude increases risk mitigation and safety because sport pilots may operate expanded aircraft under section 61.316, which permits sport pilots to operate larger aircraft and the higher minimum altitude recovery prevents sport pilots from operating the larger aircraft closer to the ground when performing slow flight and stall maneuvers during a practical test. FAA revises the Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane, and Glider Category (FAA-S-8081-29B) minimum recovery altitudes for slow flight and stalls in Section 1, Tasks A, B, and C, element 2 to 1,500 feet AGL.
One commenter requested an explicit commitment that the incorporated PTS will remain free, downloadable, and accessible (offline PDFs; stable URLs). As required by 5 U.S.C. 552(a), these PTS are reasonably available because FAA provides free, downloadable, and accessible copies.
The FAA received three individual comments and one anonymous comment that are considered out of scope. One commenter asked several questions regarding student pilot eligibility requirements to obtain a sport pilot certificate and in what aircraft the applicant must train and complete a practical test. These questions are outside the scope of this rulemaking because the updates to the three PTS are not changing sport pilot certificate eligibility requirements and the MOSAIC rulemaking confirmed that sport pilot training and practical tests must be completed in an aircraft meeting the performance limitations and design requirements set forth in section 61.316.
Two individual commenters recommended specific revisions to narrow elements and tasks within the Airplane Category Sport Pilot PTS (FAA-S-8081-29) that do not arise from changes made to sport pilot requirements in MOSAIC. One commenter recommended adding language regarding “cruise configuration” and the power to be “as assigned by the evaluator” to VIII. Area of Operation: Slow Flight and Stalls, C. Task: Power-On Stalls, element 3. Another commenter requested changing the minimum altitude in the area of operation for ground reference maneuvers from 600 feet AGL to match the applicable ACS standard of 600 to 1,000 feet AGL. Another commenter suggested referencing the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) in the Sport Pilot PTSs, I. Area of Operation: Preflight Preparation, A. Task: Certificates and Documents.
In addition, FAA has determined that these recommended revisions do not present an imminent safety concern because a minimum altitude of 600 feet AGL already exists in both PTS and ACS to perform ground reference maneuvers safely during a practical test or proficiency check and because TCDS are not tested during an airman practical test or proficiency check.
One commenter had general concerns with the costs regarding examiner fees, travel, and scheduling tied to requiring a practical test to add sport-pilot airplane privileges. FAA has determined this comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking because the requirement to complete a practical test to obtain airplane privileges at the sport pilot level was imposed during the MOSAIC rulemaking. The updates to the three PTS are not imposing new requirements and are simply aligning the testing requirements with the amended regulatory requirements. This same commenter also requested that FAA add data to the beginning of the PTS on practical test wait times, examiner fees, examiner types, a location for applicants to report unfair scheduling or fee practices, and examiner guidance for consistent applicant assessment. Finally, this commenter recommended the PTS be amended to remove gendered terminology. FAA has determined that these concerns are unrelated to the proposed changes to the PTS and are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The certification requirements for pilots and flight instructors are set forth in 14 CFR part 61. As previously stated, section 61.14 lists the ACS and PTS incorporated by reference into part 61 pertaining to pilots and flight instructors. This section summarizes the three PTS amended and incorporated by reference in this final rule.
Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane, and Glider Category; FAA-S-8081-29B, establishes the aeronautical knowledge, special emphasis areas considered critical to flight safety, and proficiency standards for the sport pilot practical tests and proficiency checks for the airplane, gyroplane, glider, and flight instructor. This PTS contains the following Areas of Operation: Preflight Preparation; Preflight Procedures; Airport and Seaplane Base Operations; Takeoffs, Landings, and Go-Arounds; Performance Maneuver; Ground Reference Maneuvers; Navigation; Slow Flight and Stalls; Emergency Operations; and Postflight Procedures. FAA amends the minimum recovery altitude in this PTS from 1,000 to 1,500 feet AGL for stalls and slow flight tasks. This change is further discussed in section IV. C. of this document.
Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category; FAA-S-8081-30B, which establishes the aeronautical knowledge, special emphasis areas considered critical to flight safety, and proficiency standards for the sport pilot practical tests and proficiency checks for the airship, balloon, and flight instructor. This PTS contains the following Areas of Operation: Preflight Preparation; Preflight Procedures; Airport Operations; Takeoffs, Landings, and Go-Arounds; Performance Maneuver; Ground Reference Maneuvers; Navigation; Emergency Operations; and Postflight Procedures. This PTS is incorporated by reference as proposed.
Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Powered Parachute Category and Weight-Shift Control Category; FAA-S-8081-31B, which establishes the aeronautical knowledge, special emphasis areas considered critical to flight safety, and proficiency standards for the sport pilot practical tests and proficiency checks for the weight-shift control, powered parachute, and flight instructor. This PTS contains the following Areas of Operation: Preflight Preparation; Preflight Procedures; Airport and Seaplane Base Operations; Takeoffs, Landings, and Go-Arounds; Performance Maneuver; Ground Reference Maneuvers; Navigation; Slow Flight and Stalls; Emergency Operations; and Postflight Procedures. This PTS is incorporated by reference as proposed.
E.O. 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f)(1) of E.O. 12866.
FAA received six comments on the NPRM, none of which addressed the initial economic analysis. However, the analysis of the final rule does account for the change from the NPRM regarding increased minimum recovery altitude in the interest of safety. Otherwise, the qualitative initial analysis is unchanged for the final RIA.
The publication of the MOSAIC final rule on July 24, 2025 created a conflict between operational regulations adopted by MOSAIC and language in the three PTS related to the certification of sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating and operation of light-sport category aircraft. This conflict meant that the PTS language limited the aircraft sport pilots and sport pilot flight instructors could use to complete the practical test or proficiency check requirements for certain sport pilot privileges compared to the aircraft they could currently operate under MOSAIC. This created a potential training and safety disconnect, as pilots might demonstrate proficiency in traditional light-sport aircraft without ever training or testing in the larger aircraft allowed under MOSAIC. To address this issue, FAA aligns language in the sport pilot PTS that identifies which aircraft can be used to satisfy practical test and proficiency check requirements under part 61 with the new sport pilot operational limits adopted in the MOSAIC final rule.
The PTS establish the formal guidelines, standards, and criteria used by FAA Safety Inspectors and Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) to evaluate an applicant's suitability for an airman certification, ensuring they demonstrate proficiency and can safely operate within the NAS. FAA maintains all PTS documents as freely accessible digital resources on the FAA testing standards web page, allowing stakeholders to access or download them at any time without charge. Furthermore, FAA does not require the printing or possession of physical copies of these documents for training or testing purposes.
In contrast, the operational rules governing the scope of flying under a sport pilot certificate or providing instruction with a sport pilot rating are established by the MOSAIC final rule. Although the PTS governs the validation of a pilot's skills to acquire a sport pilot certificate for flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, the MOSAIC rule defines the operating environment of the certificate, including allowing sport pilots and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to now utilize larger, more robust, and more diverse aircraft. Because the operational authority to fly these aircraft is legally in effect as of October 22, 2025, any safety and economic impacts associated with the new airframes and equipment are fully realized under the MOSAIC operational baseline, distinct from the administrative function of the testing standards.
This rule aligns sport pilot PTS with the MOSAIC final rule and generates no incremental benefits. Although the transition to performance-based standards allows sport pilots to operate larger, more robust aircraft with enhanced safety features, any associated benefits are wholly attributed to the MOSAIC final rule. This rule is a technical alignment that ensures testing requirements remain consistent with the operational authorities established under MOSAIC; therefore, no independent safety or economic benefits are claimed for this administrative update.
FAA estimates this rule imposes no incremental costs on stakeholders and only de minimis administrative costs on the agency. As noted in the baseline, the testing standards used by stakeholders are freely available on FAA's website, and FAA does not require printing or physical copies of these documents. Therefore, once the updated documents are made available online after final rule publication, the voluntary choice to print the updated standards by any testing centers, companies, or individuals is not considered an incurred cost of this rule. FAA also notes there are no new costs to applicants for an initial certificate, rating, or privilege and to existing airmen (
FAA has de minimis administrative costs to make the described updates aligning the PTS documents with the MOSAIC final rule and to upload them to its website. There are no other costs to the agency for these updates because the process by which testing is conducted, or the manner in which PTS and ACS are currently implemented, is not changing. Therefore, FAA considers this to be a no cost rule for stakeholders with de minimis costs to the agency to support the MOSAIC final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This final rule updates three PTS for sport pilots to align with the standards of the MOSAIC final rule. These changes are made by FAA to its own documents, freely provided and accessible on the testing standards web pages of FAA. Some aviation supply or testing entities may choose to print and sell the PTS, but since FAA does not require physical versions of the standards, any costs to re-print the documents are incurred voluntarily and are not attributable to this rule. Therefore, with no costs for the rule there is no significant economic impacts to small entities.
If an agency determines a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) and based on the foregoing, the head of FAA certifies this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
FAA has assessed the effect of this rule and determined it aligns testing standards to the operational authorities of MOSAIC and does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, FAA does not consider this rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA has determined the rule will not result in the expenditure of $193,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
The Department analyzed the environmental impacts of this rulemaking pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.
Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning
E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”),
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”)
The rule updates the incorporated by reference PTS and the final versions may be viewed online in the docket to this rulemaking. For further information, contact the Training and Certification Group at 202-267-1100,
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents FAA considered in developing this final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 1996) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Incorporation by reference, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Teachers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 61 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); sec. 318, Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3186 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); sec. 820, Pub. L. 118-63, 138 Stat. 1330 (49 U.S.C. 44939 note); secs. 815 and 828, Pub. L. 118-63, 138 Stat. 1328, 1336 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
The revisions read as follows:
(12) FAA-S-8081-29B, Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Airplane Category, Rotorcraft Category Gyroplane, and Glider Category, June 2026; IBR approved for §§ 61.43, 61.321; 61.419; appendix A to this part.
(13) FAA-S-8081-30B, Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Lighter-Than-Air Category, June 2026; IBR approved for §§ 61.43; 61.321; and 61.419; appendix A to this part.
(14) FAA-S-8081-31B, Sport Pilot and Flight Instructors with a Sport Pilot Rating Practical Test Standards for Powered Parachute Category and Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft Category, June 2026; IBR approved for §§ 61.43; 61.321; 61.419; appendix A to this part.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie within a 300-yard radius of an overwater drone display at 41°41′15.9″ N, 83°22′14.7″ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an overwater drone display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or their designated representative.
This rule is effective from 9 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on September 12, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact MST2 Jacob Allen, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo; (419) 418-6050,
The Coast Guard received notification that drones will be launched from Maumee Bay State Park on Lake Erie near Oregon, OH. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with drones are a safety concern for anyone within a 300-yard radius of the Drone show location. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on August 25, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by September 12, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 12, 2026. If, due to weather conditions, the day and time of enforcement differ from what is stated in this temporary final rule, the revised day and time of enforcement will be announced to the public in advance. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Lake Erie within a 300-yard
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “Agency”) is taking final action to approve a revision to the State of California's state implementation plan (SIP) for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The revision includes an update to the SJV area's motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets”) for nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective October 14, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2026-3400. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Lindsay Wickersham, Air Planning Office (ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone number: (415) 947-4192, or by email at
Throughout this document, the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple abbreviations and terms in this final rule. While this list may not be exhaustive, for ease of reading and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
The EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the SJV portion of the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The revision includes an update to the SJV subarea budgets for NO
The EPA has legal authority to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, submissions of SIPs and SIP revisions under CAA section 110(k). The applicable requirements for this type of action include those in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), CAA section 110(l), 40 CFR 51.102, and 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 40 CFR 51.102 establish certain procedural requirements on States for adoption and submittal of SIPs and SIP revisions to the EPA to meet CAA requirements. CAA section 110(l) prohibits the EPA from approving SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Generally, the EPA reviews budgets for approval in the context of the Agency's review of a control strategy. A State may revise the motor vehicle emissions inventories and related budgets without revising its entire SIP, consistent with CAA section 110(l), if: (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with new base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories based on a more recent emissions model; and (2) the State can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
At 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA specifies certain other minimum requirements for budgets to be found adequate or approved.
On July 9, 2026, the EPA proposed,
The EPA previously approved budgets for the 2008 ozone standards for the SJV nonattainment area. The ozone precursor budgets were included as part of the EPA's approval of three SIP revisions submitted by CARB to address the nonattainment planning requirements for the SJV for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the RFP and attainment demonstrations. These SIP revisions include the “San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2016 Ozone Plan”) and the portions of the “Revised Proposed 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan” (“2016 State SIP Strategy”) and “2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan” (“2018 SIP Update”) that pertain to the SJV for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In our July 9, 2026 proposed rule, we reviewed the revised budgets in the April 30, 2026 submittal, evaluated them for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, and concluded that they meet all applicable requirements. More specifically, we found that the 2016 SJV Ozone Plan will continue to meet applicable requirements for RFP and attainment when the existing approved, EMFAC2014-based budgets are replaced with the revised budgets based on EMFAC2021 with the November 2025 adjustment factors, and that the changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions of the 2016 SJV Ozone SIP.
As such, we found that approval of the revised NO
In our proposed rule, the EPA also proposed to limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update. We did so in light of CARB's request to limit the duration of the revised budgets and CARB's explanation for why the budgets in the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update may become outdated and should be replaced upon an EPA adequacy finding for further revised budgets. In short, CARB has requested that we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets because CARB expects the next version of EMFAC to estimate higher emissions for certain onroad motor vehicle categories and for certain areas of the State, necessitating updates to the budgets once the next version of EMFAC is submitted to and approved by the EPA.
If the EPA approves the future EMFAC model version, CARB explains that the budgets from the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update, for which we are finalizing approval in this action, may become outdated and will need to be revised. In addition, CARB states that, without the ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or more after the updated SIP (with the future budgets) is submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process.
Please see our July 9, 2026 proposed rule for more information concerning the background for this action and for a more detailed discussion of the rationale for approval of the revised budgets.
Our July 9, 2026 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on August 10, 2026. During this period, we received comments from five commenters. Two of the commenters refer to air pollution generally, but their comments are not germane to the proposed action. The three other commenters generally support the proposed action, but express certain potential objections, make certain recommendations or request clarification of certain statements in the proposed rule.
We would expect the SIP revision containing the future budget replacements to compare the approved budgets with the submitted budgets, both on a county-level basis as well as a regional basis, similar to the types of comparisons CARB has provided in the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update.
For the EPA to find budgets adequate, the budgets must meet, at a minimum, the EPA's adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). To meet these requirements, the budgets must be consistent with the attainment and RFP requirements and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.
As such, an EPA finding of adequacy for any replacement budgets relies upon both analysis of public comments on the submitted budgets and on the information included by CARB in support of the submitted budgets and is based on EPA's determination that the submitted budgets are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
For the reasons discussed in the July 9, 2026 proposed rule and summarized in this final rule, the EPA is approving the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update submitted by CARB on April 30, 2026, and all the revised subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets contained therein for the SJV area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a revision to the California SIP. More specifically, the EPA is approving, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the 2026 Valley Ozone Budget Update and the revised VOC and NO
With our final approval, we are also limiting the duration of the approval of the budgets to last only until the effective date of an adequacy finding by the EPA for any subsequently submitted budgets for the same CAA purpose and years. We are doing so at CARB's request consistent with 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
Lastly, on the effective date of this action, the previously approved budgets for the 2008 ozone standard will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes, and the SJV MPOs and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) must use the revised budgets for future transportation conformity determinations.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves a State plan as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not an Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and it shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(a) * * *
(14) San Joaquin Valley, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS only (years 2026, 2029 and 2031 budgets only), approved October 14, 2026.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved until November 30, 2027 an information collection associated with the rules for the Universal Service Schools and Libraries program contained in the Commission's
The amendatory instructions 4 and 5, published at 91 FR 29051, on May 19, 2026 are effective September 14, 2026.
Jennifer Mensah, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-1387 or TTY (202) 418-0484 or via email:
The Commission made a submission for non-substantive changes to an existing collection for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on June 25, 2026, which were approved by the OMB on July 7, 2026.
The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 7, 2026, for the amendatory instructions 4 and 5, published at 91 FR 29051, on May 19, 2026.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0806.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
On April 30, 2026, the Commission took action to reinforce the success and integrity of the E-Rate program by establishing a competitive bidding portal and document repository to strengthen the E-Rate program's competitive bidding rules as well as other actions to simplify and streamline program processes and procedures for E-Rate participants. In addition, the Commission adopted changes to streamline and simplify the E-Rate program while maintaining the integrity of the program. Those actions provided greater transparency into the applicants' competitive bidding and bid evaluation and selection processes, and protect the program against waste, fraud, and abuse.
The submission was made for non-substantive changes to an existing information collection pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507. The submission sought to alleviate the current 10-year document retention and production requirement for service providers and applicants of the schools and libraries universal service support program, commonly known as the E-Rate program. The submission also sought to add checkboxes and/or fields applicable to the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Description of Services Requested and Certification FCC Form 470 and FCC Form 471.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
FAA is evaluating a future amendment to its regulations to permit firefighters to be transported to and from the site of a wildfire aboard certain restricted category aircraft when the purpose of that transportation is to permit those firefighters to perform ground wildfire suppression. The amendment would apply to civil aircraft operations and public aircraft operations when the restricted category aircraft is owned by a civilian operator. This action responds to a statutory mandate, and FAA has determined it needs additional information to address both the mandate and the assessment of its economic impact. This ANPRM invites public comments on the current availability of firefighter transportation resources, hindrances and needs influencing their transport, and cost-benefit considerations affecting the transport of firefighters on certain aircraft.
Send comments on or before November 13, 2026.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2026-10991 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
John Attebury, Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Operations Group, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: 202-267-1100, Email:
In response to regulatory changes required by section 360, “Wildfire Suppression,” of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63), and for FAA to gather additional information to assist in developing a proposed rule and assess its likely economic impact, FAA is publishing this ANPRM, which contemplates proposed amendments to §§ 91.313 and 119.1 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow for the transportation of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire to perform active ground wildfire suppression using restricted category aircraft. Currently, under § 91.313(d), no person may be carried on a restricted category civil aircraft
FAA seeks public comment on the areas outlined within this ANPRM. FAA also seeks comments on how this rulemaking could be implemented to meet the objective of the proposal in a manner that maximizes benefits without imposing excessive, unjustified, or unnecessary costs.
Specific questions are included in this ANPRM immediately following the discussion of the relevant issues. FAA asks commenters to provide as much information as possible on any questions of interest to the commenter. In some areas, FAA requests very specific information. Whenever possible, please provide citations and copies of any relevant studies or reports on which you rely, including cost data, as well as any additional data that supports your comment. It is also helpful to explain the basis and reasoning underlying your comment. Each commenting party should include the identifying number of the specific question(s) to which it is responding.
FAA will use comments to make decisions regarding the content and direction of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) or other future rulemakings related to section 360. Comments, including proposals for rulemaking, will be considered within the context of FAA's existing statutory authority.
FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes, in part, the rulemaking authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of FAA's authority. In carrying out part A (Air Commerce and Safety) of subtitle VII, the Administrator is charged with prescribing regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This ANPRM is within the scope of that authority.
In addition, section 360 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Pub. L. 118-63), requires FAA to issue a rule not later than 18 months after enactment of section 360 permitting special purpose operations described in 14 CFR 21.25(b)(7) to allow for the transport of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire to perform ground wildfire suppression and to designate the firefighters conducting the operation as essential crewmembers on board a covered aircraft operated on a mission to suppress wildfires. Section 360 provides the aircraft maintenance, inspections, and pilot training requirements under 14 CFR part 135 may apply to such an operation as determined by the Administrator to be necessary to maintain the safety of firefighters carrying out wildfire suppression missions, and the noise standards described in 14 CFR part 36 shall not apply to such an operation. In addition, section 360 states in issuing a rule, FAA shall not enable aircraft of a type that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the Armed Forces and was later modified to be used for wildfire suppression. Finally, section 360 requires the Administrator to revise FAA Order 8110.56, “Restricted Category Type Certification” (Feb. 27, 2006), to reflect the requirements of section 360.
The landscape and dynamics of fighting wildfires in many areas throughout the United States has changed since 2020. According to data from the National Interagency Fire Center, from 2020 through 2024 there have been an average of 61,680 wildfires and 7,288,791 acres burned each year within the United States.
In order to ensure sufficient resources are available to suppress wildfires and protect public safety and property, Congress mandated a rulemaking under section 360 to designate firefighters as “essential crewmembers.”
One pathway for conducting firefighting operations is as a Public Aircraft Operation. Operating under public aircraft status is a statutory authority reserved only for certain government entities and contractors operating on behalf of a valid government entity.
There are statutory requirements a government entity must meet to conduct PAO. Specifically, the aircraft used must meet the definition of a public aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41). Public aircraft are defined differently depending on the government entity owning or operating the public aircraft. For example, a public aircraft leased by a State, the District of Columbia, territories and possessions of the United States, or a political subdivision of one of those governments, must be exclusively leased for 90 continuous days.
In summary, under current statutes and regulations, to utilize restricted category aircraft to transport firefighters
Prior to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, civilian contractors conducting PAO on behalf of government entities and using restricted category aircraft were not subject to FAA's civil regulations. Section 328 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 now requires FAA's operating and maintenance regulations to apply to civilian operators that own restricted category aircraft even if they are operating on behalf of a government entity as a PAO. Specifically, section 328 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator shall have sole regulatory and oversight jurisdiction over the maintenance and operations of aircraft owned by civilian operators and type-certificated in the restricted category under section 21.25 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.”
As a result of this new requirement, there is a subset of PAO that are subject to some of FAA's civil regulations. The new section 328 requirements now prohibit civilian operators that own restricted category aircraft from transporting firefighters because they would not be able to comply with § 91.313, the civil operating rule pertaining to restricted category aircraft.
Civil aircraft operations are another pathway by which aerial firefighting operations can be conducted in restricted category civil aircraft provided the operation qualifies as a special purpose operation. Typically, aircraft used to conduct firefighting operations through the aerial dispensing of liquids have been issued a restricted category airworthiness certificate for that special purpose operation.
The requirements for issuing type certificates for restricted category aircraft are codified in 14 CFR 21.25. Section 21.25(b) lists seven special purpose operations including agricultural, forest and wildlife conservation, aerial surveying, patrolling, weather control, aerial advertising, and any other operation specified by FAA. FAA Order 8110.56B further clarifies under the special purpose of Forest and Wildlife Conservation, the term “aerial dispensing of liquids” is included in the special purpose operation for firefighting aircraft. This designation does not include transporting firefighters to or from the site of a wildfire to perform ground wildfire suppression.
When conducting a CAO in a restricted category civil aircraft, an operator must comply with the requirements of § 91.313 (“Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating limitations”). Section 91.313(a) establishes that no person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is certificated, or in an operation other than one necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special purpose. Section 91.313 contains exceptions to the requirements of § 91.313(a); however, those exceptions do not allow the transportation of firefighters to and from a site to perform ground wildfire suppression. Section 91.313(c) establishes that a restricted category civil aircraft cannot carry “persons or property for compensation or hire.” However, paragraph (c) allows an exception for those aircraft to carry persons or material necessary to accomplish a special purpose operation and states those operations are not considered to be the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. Finally, § 91.313(d) contains a listing of the persons who may be carried on a restricted category civil aircraft; these are: a flight crew member, a flight crew member trainee, a person who performs an essential function in connection with the special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated, a person who is necessary to accomplish the work activity associated with that special purpose, or a person who is necessary to accomplish an operation outlined in § 91.313(h).
Under the current regulatory requirements, conducting a CAO using restricted category civil aircraft for the purpose of transporting firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire to perform ground wildfire suppression is not permitted. The restrictions in § 91.313 preventing that transportation are:
1. That transportation is other than the special purpose of the “aerial dispensing of liquids” for which the restricted category civil aircraft is certificated (§ 91.313(a)(1));
2. That transportation is an operation other than one necessary to accomplish the “aerial dispensing of liquids” (§ 91.313(a)(2)); and
3. The firefighters are not performing an essential function in connection with the “aerial dispensing of liquids” nor are they necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the “aerial dispensing of liquids” (§ 91.313(d)(3) & (4)).
Another consideration when conducting this type of CAO is determining the applicability of 14 CFR part 119 (“Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators”), which outlines the certification requirements for operators intending to operate civil aircraft as, among other things, an air carrier or commercial operator in air commerce. Section 119.1(e) contains a listing of operations for which part 119 does not apply, and “firefighting” is listed in § 119.1(e)(4)(iv) under “Aerial work operations.” The transportation of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire to perform ground wildfire suppression is not considered an “aerial work operation;”
Section 135.25 provides the requirements for aircraft used in part 135 operations, and § 135.25(a)(1) requires those aircraft to be “. . . registered as a civil aircraft of the United States and carries an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. . . .” A restricted category airworthiness certificate is not an appropriate airworthiness certificate for part 135 operations because FAA has determined those aircraft are not appropriate for transporting persons or property for compensation or hire.
The restrictions imposed on restricted category aircraft, and the fact that the transportation of firefighters to perform ground wildfire suppression is not currently considered a special purpose operation under § 21.25(b), effectively prohibit the CAO transportation of firefighters in a restricted category civil aircraft to perform ground-based firefighting actions.
In a 2018 legal interpretation, FAA addressed the question of whether firefighters transported aboard restricted category civil aircraft to extinguish fires from the ground are deemed to be performing an essential in-flight function in connection with a special purpose operation and whether the transportation of firefighters falls under the § 119.1(e) exception of an “aerial work operation.” FAA determined the transportation of firefighters for ground firefighting from one location to another is not related to the special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated.
In the interpretation, FAA stated with respect to § 119.1(e)(4)(iv), if firefighters are performing an aerial work operation (firefighting from the aircraft), the certification requirements of part 119 do not apply.
As a result of the current civil regulatory framework and the 2018 legal interpretation, revision to § 91.313 may be warranted, and FAA Order 8110.56 would be revised to add transportation of firefighters to the site of a wildfire as a special purpose operation as defined in § 21.25(b)(7). In addition, revision to the § 119.1(e) exceptions may also be warranted to except the transportation of certain firefighters from part 119 applicability.
This ANPRM is intended to gather information from the public to help inform FAA's efforts to assess options for safely implementing the requirements of section 360 to enable the transportation of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire on restricted category aircraft, excluding former military aircraft.
Below, FAA poses questions to the public it hopes will further inform FAA's consideration of a section 360 rulemaking. Please reference the specific question(s), or number of the question(s), to which you are responding. Please include what government entity or private organization is providing the responses and any other information that may help FAA develop an NPRM. Also include any sources for your information and any data or context that you use in developing your comment.
Fighting wildfires is a topic of great interest and need throughout the United States, with the majority of firefighting actions performed by government entities, either local, State, or Federal. While the rules for flight in the national airspace system are established, the operational parameters and types of aircraft by which these entities perform firefighting actions and transport firefighters to the site of wildfires vary across the different entities. The aircraft may be owned or contracted by the government entity, and the entity may perform the actions under PAO or CAO, depending on the internal policies of the entity involved, the situation surrounding the firefighting activity, and the availability of aircraft. FAA seeks information regarding the types of standard category and restricted category aircraft currently used to transport firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire so those firefighters can perform ground wildfire suppression.
1. By enabling restricted category aircraft to provide transportation of firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire as described in section 360, please provide the expected increase in the number of firefighters that will be transported by your organization to suppress wildfires, if any.
2. Over the last five years, what was your annual average of aerial transportation flight segments transporting firefighters to and from a location to perform ground wildfire suppression actively that were conducted as PAO? How many were conducted as CAO?
A. In your answer, please include: the make and model of each aircraft used in firefighter transport; the average number of annual flight segments per aircraft and how many hours on average were spent per flight segment transporting firefighters to and from the site of wildfires; the hourly cost to operate and maintain each aircraft; and whether those aircraft were operated
B. Of your flights transporting firefighters to and from the site of a wildfire to perform ground wildfire suppression over the last five years, what percentage of CAO operations out of the total number of desired CAO operations for transportation of firefighters did you have to cancel or not pursue due to the lack of available aircraft because of the restriction on using restricted category civil aircraft?
3. Are you facing difficulties in finding contractors to transport firefighters under CAO to suppress wildfires? If so, what are these difficulties?
4. What types of restricted category civil aircraft, other than surplus military aircraft, would be capable of transporting firefighters if allowed by a change in regulations as proposed in section 360?
5. A. Does your organization have policies, procedures, or contractual requirements that prevent the transportation of firefighters on restricted category aircraft, regardless of whether operating as a PAO or CAO? If so, why?
B. If FAA revises the rules to permit transportation of firefighters on restricted category aircraft, would you revise your policies and procedures to permit transportation of firefighters on restricted category aircraft? Why or why not?
Wildfires are by their nature chaotic, unique, and unpredictable, and they can have disastrous economic impacts on the United States. Government entities and those organizations they contract with to fight wildfires expend considerable resources on the prevention and mitigation of wildfires, and firefighting efforts save untold billions in potential damages as well as saving lives. FAA seeks information related to the economic impact a rulemaking based on section 360 would have on your organization, the financial constraints and realities of operating restricted category aircraft for transporting firefighters, and information related to the types and costs of the aircraft being used.
1. If the 14 CFR part 135 aircraft maintenance, inspections, and pilot training requirements are applied to restricted category aircraft that transport firefighters, please provide the estimated costs to meet these part 135 requirements by aircraft make and model. If these requirements were applied to restricted category aircraft to transport firefighters, what percent of the flight segments you provide in standard category aircraft would you replace with a restricted category aircraft?
2. For operators currently providing transportation of firefighters on aircraft that are not in the restricted category, what impact would this rulemaking have on your operation?
3. As compared to current response times to get firefighters on location to perform ground wildfire suppression actively, will allowing the transport of firefighters on restricted category aircraft improve wildfire response times and if so, how much?
4. What additional quantitative or qualitative benefits or drawbacks does your organization anticipate from a rulemaking based upon the directives Congress stipulated in section 360?
This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 14192 as it is a prerulemaking action.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments explain the reason for any recommendations and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this ANPRM. Before acting on this rulemaking, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this ANPRM 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 ANPRM, 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 ANPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the
A copy of this ANPRM, all comments received, any NPRM and final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this ANPRM, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and section 360 of Public Law 118-63 in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of pitch upset upon autopilot disconnect following engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) messages that indicated that the autopilot was holding significant nose up or nose down forces on the elevator. This proposed AD would require revising the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to change the procedure for the AP STAB TRIM FAIL (C) advisory message from a non-normal procedure to an emergency procedure to provide the flightcrew with emergency procedures to follow to stabilize airspeed in certain conditions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; 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 John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42, dated August 26, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states that there have been reports of pitch upset upon autopilot disconnect. Investigation of these events identified common factors leading to the pitch upset. Prior to each event, there were EICAS messages that indicated that the autopilot was holding significant nose up or nose down forces on the elevator. Flightcrew delays in responding to these EICAS messages and not stabilizing airspeed could result in the horizontal stabilizer becoming severely out of trim. Disengagement of the autopilot when the horizontal stabilizer is not correctly trimmed could result in a sudden elevator movement if the control column is not held firmly, which could adversely affect the safe operation of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 specifies procedures for revising the existing AFM to change the procedure for the AP STAB TRIM FAIL (C) message from a non-normal procedure to an emergency procedure to provide the flightcrew with procedures for immediate action under certain conditions.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 requires operators to “advise all flight crews” of the revisions to the AFM, and thereafter to “operate the aeroplane accordingly.” However, this proposed AD would not specifically require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the existing AFM including all updates. Section 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore, including a requirement in this proposed AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM would be redundant and unnecessary.
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 Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 for compliance will be available at
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 680 airplanes 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 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 29, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Bombardier Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of pitch upset upon autopilot disconnect following engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) messages that indicated that the autopilot was holding significant nose up or nose down forces on the elevator. The FAA is issuing this AD to provide the flightcrew with emergency procedures to follow to stabilize airspeed in the event of receiving the AP STAB TRIM FAIL (C) advisory message. Flightcrew delays in responding to these EICAS messages and not stabilizing the airspeed could lead to the horizontal stabilizer becoming severely out of trim, which, if not addressed, could result in a sudden elevator movement after the disengagement of autopilot if the control column is not held firmly, which could adversely affect the safe operation of the airplane.
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, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42, dated August 26, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42).
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 refers to “the Transport Canada approved AFM”, this AD requires replacing that text with “the existing AFM”.
(3) Where paragraph B. of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42 specifies to advise all flight crews and thereafter operate the aeroplane accordingly, this AD does not require those actions as those actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations (see 14 CFR 91.9, 91.505, and 121.137).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; 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) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-42, dated August 26, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 6X and FALCON 7X airplanes, and certain Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of passenger seats sliding without passenger input, which subsequent investigation determined to be caused by the ring brakes and ring brake housing being out of allowed adjustment tolerances, failing to lock the seat in place. This proposed AD would require an inspection of each affected seat for discrepancies and applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also limit the installation of affected seats under certain conditions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29, 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 2025-0134, dated June 26, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0134) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 6X and FALCON 7X airplanes, and certain Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states that reports of passenger seats sliding without passenger input were received. Relevant investigations determined that the ring brakes and ring brake housing were out of allowed adjustment tolerances and failed to lock the seat in place. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the affected seat to remain in its position during critical phases of flight, which could result 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 2025-0134 specifies procedures for accomplishment of a one-time inspection of affected seats for the following discrepancies: failure of one or both ring brake assemblies to lock the seat during the functional test, and incorrect tension in the mechanical assembly and, depending on findings, on-condition actions. On-condition actions include realigning the ring brake housing assembly, replacing any affected brake assemblies, and adjusting the tension in the mechanical assembly. EASA AD 2025-0134 also limits the installation of affected seats to those that have been inspected and on which applicable corrective actions have been accomplished. 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 2025-0134 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 2025-0134 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0134 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0134 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0134. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0134 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 148 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
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:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by October 29, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to the Dassault Aviation airplanes identified in (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0134, dated June 26, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0134).
(1) Model FALCON 6X airplanes.
(2) Model FALCON 7X airplanes.
(3) Model FALCON 900EX airplanes.
(4) Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of passenger seats sliding without passenger input. Relevant investigations identified that the ring brakes and ring brake housing were out of allowed adjustment tolerances and failed to lock the seat in place. The unsafe condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the affected seat to remain in its position during critical phases of flight, which could result in 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, EASA AD 2025-0134.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0134 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0134 specifies “any discrepancy is identified”, this AD requires replacing that text with “one or both ring brake assemblies fail to lock the seat on the tracking tubes under the functional test criteria specified in
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0134 specifies “Where B/E Aerospace UCT SB SB-3ABF0107-25-79 provides instructions to”, this AD requires replacing that text with “Where B/E Aerospace UCT SB SB-3ABF0107-25-79 or the SB provides instructions to”.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0134.
(5) Where the definition of Groups in EASA AD 2025-0134 specifies “affected part”, this AD requires replacing that text with “affected seat”.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0134 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 2025-0134, dated June 26, 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-26-06, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -941 airplanes; and all Airbus SAS Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes. AD 2024-26-06 requires modifying the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) installation, implementing the electrical load sensing device (ELSD) wiring provisions, and installing and activating the ELSD with revised procedures and also requires additional actions for certain airplanes. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-26-06, it has been determined that additional actions are required on certain airplanes after completion of the modification. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2024-26-06 and would require additional work for certain airplanes. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29, 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. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Matthew Spickelmier, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-846-2893; 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 Matthew Spickelmier, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-846-2893; email:
The FAA issued AD 2024-26-06, Amendment 39-22921 (90 FR 8901, February 4, 2025) (AD 2024-26-06), for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -941 airplanes; and all Airbus SAS Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes. AD 2024-26-06 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2024-0016, dated January 11, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0016), to correct an unsafe condition. EASA AD 2024-0016 was prompted by tests that demonstrated that when the upper secondary load path (SLP) of the THSA is engaged, the THSA might not stall, with consequently no indication of SLP engagement, and by the determination that additional actions are required on certain airplanes after completion of a certain modification required by EASA AD 2022-0239, dated December 7, 2022.
AD 2024-26-06 requires modifying the THSA installation, implementing the ELSD wiring provisions, and installing and activating the ELSD with revised procedures and also requires additional actions for certain airplanes. The FAA issued AD 2024-26-06 to address damage on the upper THSA SLP attachment with consequent mechanical disconnection of the THSA, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2024-26-06, EASA superseded EASA AD 2024-0016, and issued EASA AD 2025-0169, dated July 31, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0169) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -941 airplanes; and all Airbus SAS Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes. The MCAI states that additional work (depending on the configuration, additional work includes application of sealant, modification of connectors, making sure certain metallic clamps are tight on the conduit, and modification of the structure around frame 87) is required on certain airplanes after the accomplishment of a certain modification (
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2024-26-06, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2024-26-06. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2025-0169, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0169, which specifies procedures for modifying the THSA installation, implementing the ELSD wiring provisions, installing and activating the ELSD with revised procedures, and accomplishing additional actions for certain airplanes. EASA AD 2025-0169 also specifies procedures, for certain airplanes, for doing additional work (depending on the configuration, additional work includes application of sealant, modification of connectors, making sure certain metallic clamps are tight on the conduit, and modification of the structure around frame 87). The modification required by EASA AD 2025-0169 includes a concurrent action (installing electrical wiring harnesses and brackets to connect the secondary nut detection device to the monitoring systems), which is already required by AD 2017-20-02, Amendment 39-19059 (82 FR 44907, September 27, 2017).
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 2025-0169 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 2025-0169 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0169 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0169 does not mean
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 120 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
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 29, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2024-26-06, Amendment 39-22921 (90 FR 8901, February 4, 2025) (AD 2024-26-06).
This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0169, dated July 31, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0169).
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -941 airplanes.
(2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by tests that demonstrated that when the upper secondary load path (SLP) of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA) is engaged, the THSA might not stall, with consequently no indication of SLP engagement, and by the determination that additional actions are required on certain airplanes after completion of a certain modification. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent damage on the upper THSA SLP attachment with consequent mechanical disconnection of the THSA, that could result in loss of control of the airplane.
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, EASA AD 2025-0169.
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0169 refers to “22 March 2022 [the effective date of EASA AD 2022-0039],” this AD requires using September 27, 2022 (the effective date of AD 2022-16-06, Amendment 39-22135 (87 FR 51588, August 23, 2022)).
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0169 refers to “25 January 2024 [the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0016],” this AD requires using March 11, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2024-26-06).
(3) Where EASA AD 2025-0169 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(4) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0169.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2022-16-06 and AD 2024-26-06 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2025-0169 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Matthew Spickelmier, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-846-2893; 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 2025-0169, dated July 31, 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. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFM International, S.A. (CFM) Model CFM56-5B, CFM56-5C, and CFM56-7B engines with a certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) inner stationary seal installed. This proposed AD was prompted by multiple reports of honeycomb separation from the surface of HPT inner stationary seals. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of the rotating air HPT front seal for cracks and, depending on the results, replacement with a part eligible for installation. This proposed AD would also require removal and replacement of the affected HPT inner stationary seal. This proposed AD would also require inspection of the affected HPT inner stationary seal for honeycomb separation and, depending on the results of the inspection, removal and replacement of the rotating air HPT front seal, HPT rotor blades, and No. 3 ball bearing. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For CFM service material identified in this proposed AD, contact CFM GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; 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
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 Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. 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 was notified by the manufacturer of multiple reports of honeycomb separation from the surface of HPT inner stationary seals. A manufacturer investigation revealed that the affected HPT inner stationary seal may not have gone through the correct braze repair process, which could lead to a localized separation of the replaced honeycomb. This separation could affect the life of the HPT forward outer seal because missing honeycomb can induce a vibratory response in the HPT forward outer seal resulting in crack initiation in the seal teeth that propagate radially. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
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 the following service material:
• CFM Service Bulletin (SB) SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096, Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026.
• CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026.
• CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 01, dated June 9, 2026.
This service material, differentiated by engine model, specifies procedures for performing a BSI of the rotating air HPT front seal for cracks and other damage.
The FAA also reviewed the following service material:
• CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
• CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
• CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
This service material, differentiated by engine model, specifies procedures for inspecting the HPT inner stationary seal for honeycomb separation.
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 initial and repetitive BSIs of the rotating air HPT front seal for cracks and other damage and, depending on the results, replacement with a part eligible for installation. This proposed AD would also require removal and replacement of the affected HPT inner stationary seal. This proposed AD would also require inspection of the affected HPT inner stationary seal for honeycomb separation and, depending on the results of the inspection, removal and replacement of the rotating air HPT front seal, HPT rotor blades, and No. 3 ball bearing.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 39 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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 29, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. (CFM) Model engines identified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD with an installed high-pressure turbine (HPT) inner stationary seal, part number (P/N) 1808M56G01, with a serial number (S/N) listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 3, of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026 (CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 R02); Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 3, of CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026 (CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 R02); or Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 3, of CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026 (CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 R02).
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by multiple reports of honeycomb separation from the surface of HPT inner stationary seals. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT inner stationary seal and the rotating air HPT front seal. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD:
(1) Group 1 engines are CFM Model CFM56-5B engines with a rotating air HPT front seal (HPT front seal) installed having P/N 1795M36P01 or P/N 1795M36P02, and an HPT inner stationary seal installed having P/N 1808M56G01, with an S/N listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 1, of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026 (CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01).
(2) Group 2 engines are CFM Model CFM56-5B engines with an HPT front seal installed having P/N 1795M36P01 or P/N 1795M36P02, and an HPT inner stationary seal installed having P/N 1808M56G01, with an S/N listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 2, of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01.
(3) Group 3 engines are CFM Model CFM56-5C engines with an installed HPT inner stationary seal, P/N 1808M56G01, with an S/N listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 1, of CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 01, dated June 9, 2026 (CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 01).
(4) Group 4 engines are CFM Model CFM56-7B engines with an HPT front seal installed having P/N 1795M36P02, and an HPT inner stationary seal installed having P/N 1808M56G01, with an S/N listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 1, of CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096 Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026 (CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096, Revision 01).
(5) Group 5 engines are CFM Model CFM56-7B engines with an HPT front seal installed having P/N 1795M36P02 and an HPT inner stationary seal installed having P/N 1808M56G01, with an S/N listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 2, of CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096 Revision 01.
(6) An “engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for the following situations, which do not constitute an engine shop visit:
(i) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation of the engine without subsequent maintenance.
(ii) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance.
(7) An “HPT inner stationary seal that is eligible for installation” is an HPT inner stationary seal:
(i) That is not listed in Table 3 of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 R02; Table 3 of CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 R02; or Table 3 CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 R02; or
(ii) With P/N 1808M56G01 and an S/N listed in Table 3 of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 R02; Table 3 of CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 R02; or Table 3 CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 R02, that has been repaired as specified in CFM56—5B Engine Shop Manual (ESM), 72—41—03, REPAIR 003; CFM56—5C ESM, 72—41—03, REPAIR 003; or CFM56—7B ESM, 72—41—03, REPAIR 003, after the repair date listed in Paragraph 4., APPENDIX—A, Table 3 of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 R02, CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 R02, or CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 R02, as applicable by engine model.
(8) A “rotating air HPT front seal that is eligible for installation” is any rotating air HPT front seal that was not removed from service as a result of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD or as a result of paragraph (h)(5)(i) of this AD.
(9) “HPT rotor blades eligible for installation” are new HPT rotor blades with zero flight hours since new or HPT rotor blades that have been inspected and returned to a serviceable condition using FAA-approved maintenance procedures.
(10) A “No. 3 ball bearing eligible for installation” is any No. 3 ball bearing that was not removed from service as a result of paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this AD.
(1) Within the applicable time specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (v) of this AD, perform repetitive borescope inspections (BSI) of the HPT front seal in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01; CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 01; or CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096, Revision 01, as applicable by engine model.
(i) For Group 1 engines, within 400 flight cycles (FCs) after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 FCs.
(ii) For Group 2 engines, within 300 FCs after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 FCs.
(iii) For Group 3 engines, within 125 FCs after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 FCs.
(iv) For Group 4 engines, within 400 FCs after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 FCs.
(v) For Group 5 engines, within 300 FCs after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 FCs.
(2) If during any BSI required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD any crack is detected, before further flight, remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service and replace with a rotating air HPT front seal that is eligible for installation.
(3) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, remove the affected HPT inner stationary seal and replace it with an HPT inner stationary seal that is eligible for installation.
(4) After removing the affected HPT inner stationary seal required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, inspect the removed HPT inner stationary seal for honeycomb separation in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1), of CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 R02; CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 R02; or CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 R02, as applicable by engine model.
(5) If honeycomb separation is found during the inspection required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD, before further flight:
(i) Remove the rotating air HPT front seal from service and replace with a rotating air HPT front seal that is eligible for installation.
(ii) Remove the HPT rotor blades and replace them with HPT rotor blades eligible for installation.
(iii) Remove the No. 3 ball bearing from service and replace with a No. 3 ball bearing eligible for installation.
Accomplishing the actions in paragraphs (h)(3) through (5) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive BSIs of the HPT front seal required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
(1) After the effective date of this AD, do not reinstall any rotating air HPT front seal that was removed as a result of paragraphs (h)(2) or (h)(5)(i) of this AD on any engine.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not reinstall any No. 3 ball bearing that was removed as a result of paragraph (h)(5)(iii) of this AD on any engine.
Although the service material specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
You may take credit for the initial BSI specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD if you performed that BSI before the effective date of this AD using CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 00, dated July 15, 2025, CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129 Revision 00, dated July 10, 2025, or CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096 Revision 00, dated July 10, 2025.
You may take credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(3) through (5) of this AD if you performed those actions before the effective date of this AD using CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 Revision 00, dated January 28, 2025; CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125 Revision 01, dated July 10, 2025; CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 Revision 00, dated January 28, 2025; CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811 Revision 01, dated July 10, 2025; CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 Revision 00, dated January 28, 2025; or CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093 Revision 01, dated July 10, 2025.
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 (n)(1) of this AD and email to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; email:
(2) For material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact CFM GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) 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) CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-5B S/B 72-1125, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
(ii) CFM SB CFM56-5B S/B 72-1129, Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026.
(iii) CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0811, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
(iv) CFM SB CFM56-5C S/B 72-0813, Revision 01, dated June 9, 2026.
(v) CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1093, Revision 02, dated January 19, 2026.
(vi) CFM SB CFM56-7B S/B 72-1096, Revision 01, dated January 21, 2026.
(3) For CFM material identified in this AD, contact CFM GE Aviation Fleet Support, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: (877) 432-3272; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed determination.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “Agency”) is proposing to issue a clean data determination (CDD) for the Sacramento Metro, California nonattainment area to reflect our finding that the area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”). This finding is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2023 through 2025. If we finalize this CDD, certain Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements that apply to the Sacramento Metro area will be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2026-4885 at
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 947-4126; email:
Throughout this proposed rule, the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple abbreviations and terms in this proposed rule. While this list may not be exhaustive, for ease of reading and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:
The EPA is proposing to issue a CDD for the Sacramento Metro, California nonattainment area to reflect our finding that the area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This finding is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2023 through 2025.
Under the EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy,
Ground-level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NO
Health effects associated with exposure to ground-level ozone include reduced lung function; reduced ability to breathe as deeply and vigorously as normal; irritated airways, coughing, or a sore or scratchy throat; pain when taking a deep breath and shortness of breath; increased frequency of asthma attacks; inflammation of and damage to the lining of the lung; increased susceptibility to respiratory infection; and aggravation of chronic lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Ozone may continue to cause lung damage even when the symptoms have disappeared, and breathing ozone may contribute to premature death, especially in people with heart and lung disease.
Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The NAAQS establish concentration levels whose attainment and maintenance the EPA has determined to be requisite to protect public health and welfare. In 1979, the EPA established primary (public health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 ppm averaged over a 1-hour timeframe (“1-hour ozone NAAQS”).
The EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm in 2008 (“2008 ozone NAAQS”),
The Sacramento Metro area consists of Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Sutter counties, and is under the jurisdiction of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the following regional air pollution control districts: the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD), the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) (collectively, “Districts”).
CARB is the State agency responsible for the adoption and submission to the EPA of California state implementation plan (SIP) submissions. Under California law, air districts in California are generally responsible for the development of regional air quality plans and related rules. For the Sacramento Metro area, the Districts develop and adopt air quality management plans and rules to address CAA requirements applicable to the region. The Districts then submit such plans and rules to CARB for adoption and submission to the EPA as proposed revisions to the California SIP. In general, Tribes are not required to submit tribal implementation plans.
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. The EPA designated the Sacramento Metro area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004, and classified the area as “Serious,” effective June 15, 2004.
On January 29, 2015, the EPA approved the planning elements required as a result of a reclassification to Severe-15, including the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration, the attainment demonstration, and transportation control measures.
Under the EPA's longstanding Clean Data Policy,
The effect of a CDD is to suspend the requirement for an area to submit an attainment demonstration, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis, an RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to attainment for as long as the area continues to attain the standard.
A CDD is typically based on three years of complete, quality-assured, and certified air quality monitoring data gathered at established State and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.10, an area attains the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at each eligible monitoring site within the area. This 3-year average is referred to as the “design value.” When the design value is greater than 0.08 ppm at any monitor within the area, then the area is violating the NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the Sacramento Metro area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS and to issue a CDD for the area. Our proposed determination is based on three years of quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data collected in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's AQS database for the 2023-2025 monitoring period. Preliminary data available in EPA's AQS database for 2026 (January-March) indicate that the area continues to show concentrations consistent with attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) requires States to establish and operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality for all criteria pollutants. The ambient air monitoring network in the Sacramento Metro area includes air monitoring stations that are managed and operated by CARB, PCAPCD, SMAQMD, and YSAQMD. Although both EDCAQMD and FRAQMD have jurisdiction in portions of the Sacramento Metro area, neither district operates SLAMS ozone monitors in the area. CARB operates SLAMS ozone monitors within the portion of the area under EDCAQMD jurisdiction, and there are no ozone monitors within the portion of the area under FRAQMD jurisdiction.
Finally, the EPA conducts regular technical systems audits (TSAs) to review and inspect State and local ambient air monitoring programs to assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality data. CARB is the primary quality assurance organization in California that is responsible for overseeing the quality of data collected by local air monitoring organizations, which includes the Districts. For the purposes of this determination, we reviewed the findings from the EPA's 2022 TSA of CARB's ambient air monitoring program.
In accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, SMAQMD and CARB certify annually that the previous year's ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate, taking into consideration the quality assurance findings.
Consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR part 50, the EPA has reviewed the quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data for completeness. The EPA reviewed the data as recorded in AQS for the applicable monitoring period, collected at the monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro area, and has determined that the data are generally complete, with the exceptions of the Echo Summit, North Highlands—Blackfoot Way, Elk Grove—Bruceville, and Sloughhouse monitoring sites. These exceptions are described here:
• The Echo Summit monitoring site typically operates seasonally from April through October, but it could not operate during the month of April in 2019 to 2024 because persistent weather conditions made the access roads to the sites impassible.
• The North Highlands—Blackfoot Way monitoring site was shut down on August 1, 2022, due to sudden loss of the lease providing access to the monitor following the property's sale to another owner. SMAQMD notified the EPA of this abrupt closure via letter on July 28, 2022,
• The Elk Grove—Bruceville site had several hours of nullified data throughout 2023-2025 that resulted in a 3-year completeness of 88 percent which did not meet the 90 percent 3-year completeness criterion. While Elk Grove—Bruceville did not have a valid 2025 design value, for the previous five valid design values (2020-2024), Elk Grove—Bruceville was not among the top 50 percent of design values for the Sacramento Metro area, was 0.012-0.021 ppm lower than the highest design value site in the nonattainment area, and was below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
• The Sloughhouse monitoring site failed an annual performance evaluation due to an incorrectly installed ozone calibrator, which resulted in data invalidation from July 2023 through April 2024.
Historically, the design values for the Echo Summit, North Highlands—Blackfoot Way, Elk Grove—Bruceville, and Sloughhouse monitoring sites have consistently measured 0.005-0.015 ppm lower than the highest design value site for the Sacramento Metro area.
Per 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, section 2.3(b), “[w]hen computing whether the minimum data completeness requirements have been met, meteorological or ambient data may be sufficient to demonstrate that meteorological conditions on missing days were not conducive to concentrations above the level of the standard. Missing days assumed less than the level of the standard are counted for the purpose of meeting the data completeness requirement, subject to the approval of the appropriate Regional Administrator.” Both the Sacramento—Del Paso Manor and Folsom monitoring sites did not meet the data completeness criterion of at least 90 percent on average over the three-year period for the 2025 design value. However, SMAQMD submitted requests for the EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator to approve inclusion of missing days at the Sacramento—Del Paso Manor and Folsom monitors towards the minimum data completeness requirements.
Preliminary, not yet certified data available in the EPA AQS database for 2026,
As discussed in Section II.C of this document, a CDD has the effect of suspending certain planning requirements, including an attainment demonstration, a reasonably available control measures (RACM) analysis, an RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to attainment. The EPA approved these planning elements for the Sacramento Metro area
A CDD does not suspend the CAA requirements to submit an emissions inventory, revisions to nonattainment NSR programs, or rules for section 185 fee programs. Of these three remaining requirements, the Sacramento Metro area has fulfilled the emissions inventory requirement and nonattainment NSR program revisions requirement, as discussed in Section II.B of this document. Section II.B also notes that SMAQMD and FRAQMD have met the CAA section 185 fee rule requirement. We will work with the remaining districts to ensure the CAA section 185 fee rule requirement is met throughout the area.
A CDD does not have the effect of redesignating an area to attainment. Redesignation of an area to attainment requires that an area has met all applicable requirements of CAA section 110 and part D, and that the area has submitted, and the EPA has approved, a redesignation request and maintenance plan.
The EPA is proposing to determine, based on the most recent three years (2023-2025) of complete or otherwise validated, quality-assured, and certified data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, that the Sacramento Metro area has attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
In conjunction with and based on our proposed determination that the Sacramento Metro area has attained and is currently attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, the EPA is proposing to issue a CDD for the Sacramento Metro area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The Sacramento Metro area will remain subject to the requirements for an area that has been designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines, consistent with CAA sections 107 and 175A, that the Sacramento Metro area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to attain the standard for 10 years.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed action, our rationale for the proposed action, and any issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final action.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This action proposes to issue a CDD for the Sacramento Metro area and imposes no new requirements.
Executive Order 14192 does not apply because actions that make attainment determinations under Clean Air Act section 181(b)(2) are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by State law. The proposed CDD does not create any new requirements and does not directly regulate any entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Pursuant to the CAA, this action proposes a CDD.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because this determination will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. The EPA has identified Tribal areas within the Sacramento Metro area. We note that this determination, if finalized, would apply throughout the area, including on Tribal lands.
The EPA plans to notify the Tribes located within the boundaries of the Sacramento Metro area of this proposed determination. Because a final determination of attainment would not change the Tribe's existing nonattainment designation or classification, the EPA does not plan to offer government-to-government consultation on this proposed determination, however, it is our practice to initiate government-to-government consultation at the request of any Tribe.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes a CDD meets Federal requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the negative declaration submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on April 17, 2026. The negative declaration submitted by MDE certifies that there are no existing other solid waste incinerators (OSWI) subject to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) within the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland.
Written comments must be received on or before
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2026-4225 at
Krystal Stankunas, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-5271. Ms. Stankunas can also be reached via electronic mail at
The CAA requires State regulatory agencies to implement emission guidelines and associated compliance times using a State plan developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Section 111(d) of the CAA establishes standards of performance for certain existing sources. Air pollutants included under this section are those which have not already been established as air quality criteria pollutants via 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 7408(a) or hazardous air pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7412. Section 111(d)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit to EPA for approval a plan that establishes standards of performance. The plan must provide that the State will implement and enforce the standards of performance.
Section 129 of the CAA requires emission guidelines to be promulgated for solid waste incineration units, including OSWI. Section 129 of the CAA mandates that all plan requirements be at least as protective as the promulgated emission guidelines, including fixed final compliance dates, fixed compliance schedules, and title V permitting requirements for all affected sources. Section 129 of the CAA also requires the States to submit plans to the EPA within one year after promulgation of the emission guidelines and compliance times.
The EPA prescribes a Federal plan if a State does not submit a State-specific plan or the submitted plan is disapproved. If a State has no designated facilities for a standards of performance source category, it may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a State plan for that source category in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.23(b), 60.23a(b) and 62.06.
The Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, as codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF (subpart FFFF) apply to States with existing OSWI. The existing OSWI to which the emission guidelines and compliance times apply is defined at 40 CFR 60.2992 and 60.3078. Existing air curtain incinerators that are subject to this part are defined at 40 CFR 60.2994.
The MDE submitted a negative declaration to the EPA on April 17, 2026, certifying that there are no existing OSWI in its jurisdiction that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF. For additional background information on MDE's negative declaration, see the documents that are available at
The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect EPA's receipt of MDE's negative declaration for OSWI. The negative declaration satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06, serving in lieu of a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan for existing OSWI. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the EPA has the authority to approve a 129/111(d) negative declaration in lieu of a State plan that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the negative declaration submitted by the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DCDOEE) on May 21, 2026. The negative declaration submitted by DCDOEE certifies that there are no existing other solid waste incinerators (OSWI) subject to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia (DC).
Written comments must be received on or before October 14, 2026.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2026-4522 at
Krystal Stankunas, Permits Branch (3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-5271. Ms. Stankunas can also be reached via electronic mail at
The CAA requires State regulatory agencies to implement emission guidelines and associated compliance times using a State plan developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. Section 111(d) of the CAA establishes standards of performance for certain existing sources. Air pollutants included under this section are those which have not already been established as air quality criteria pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7408(a) or hazardous air pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7412. Section 111(d)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit to the EPA for approval a plan that establishes standards of performance. The plan must provide that the State will implement and enforce the standards of performance.
Section 129 of the CAA requires emission guidelines to be promulgated for solid waste incineration units, including OSWI. Section 129 mandates that all plan requirements be at least as protective as the promulgated emission guidelines, including fixed final compliance dates, fixed compliance schedules, and title V permitting requirements for all affected sources. Section 129 of the CAA also requires the States to submit plans to the EPA within one year after promulgation of the
The EPA prescribes a Federal plan if a State does not submit a State-specific plan or if the submitted plan is disapproved. If a State has no designated facilities for a standards of performance source category, it may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a State plan for that source category in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.23(b), 60.23a(b) and 62.06.
The Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Other Solid Waste Incineration Units, as codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF (subpart FFFF) apply to States with existing OSWI. The existing OSWI to which the emission guidelines and compliance times apply is defined at 40 CFR 60.2992 and 60.3078. Existing air curtain incinerators that are subject to this part are defined at 40 CFR 60.2994.
DCDOEE submitted a negative declaration to the EPA on May 21, 2026, certifying that there are no existing OSWI in its jurisdiction that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart FFFF. For additional background information on DCDOEE's negative declaration, see the documents that are available at
The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62 to reflect EPA's receipt of DCDOEE's negative declaration for OSWI. The negative declaration satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06, serving in lieu of a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan for existing OSWI. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the EPA has the authority to approve a 129/111(d) negative declaration in lieu of a State plan that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
This action is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget for an extension of, and revision to, the currently approved information collection National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (the Standard).
Comments on this notice must be received by November 13, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice by using the electronic process available at
Fiona Pexton, Acting Director, Food Labeling and Compliance Division, Science & Technology Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 2069—South, Washington, DC 20250; telephone: (202) 720-4486; email:
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service), Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands, intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess and disclose the effects of the proposed Plan of Operations (PoO), also referred to as the Mine Operations and Reclamation Plan (MORP), submitted by Roca Honda Resources, LLC (RHR), for the development and operations of the Roca Honda Mine Project. The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 and the Bureau of Land Management's
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by October 14, 2026.
The draft environmental impact statement is expected in July 2027 and an environmental impact statement is expected in January 2028. A schedule for the decision-making process and additional information about the project can be found here:
Submit written comments through the electronic form at
Written public comments will be accepted by 11:59 p.m. Mountain Time on October 14, 2026. Comments submitted after this date may not be included in the analysis.
Jenna Padilla, Forest Geologist, Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands, by email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the hearing-impaired may call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
RHR submitted a PoO to the Forest Service Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands on November 7, 2025, proposing to develop the Roca Honda Mine Project. Development and operations associated with the project would occur on lands administered by the Forest Service and the BLM, as well as on state and private lands. A draft EIS was published in 2013; however, due to the submission of a new proposal and updates to applicable regulations, the project is being reinitiated as a new project under the USDA NEPA regulations at 7 CFR 1b.
The Forest Service purpose for the action is to respond to RHR's PoO for surface use of NFS lands in connection with underground uranium mining development and operations authorized by the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54).
The Forest Service need for action is established by the agency's responsibility under the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, and 551) and the locatable minerals regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 228, Subpart A. In accordance with the 36 CFR 228.5, the Forest Service must analyze and provide timely response to the submission of a PoO. Furthermore, the Forest Service must assess whether the proposed operations will be conducted as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resource in accordance with 36 CFR 228.8.
RHR must apply to the EPA for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge pollutants into waters of the United States under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Therefore, EPA will be required to process the permit application pursuant to its regulations under 40 CFR 122.21.
The BLM must decide whether to issue a right-of-way (ROW) grant to RHR after interdisciplinary specialists analyze RHR's proposed actions on BLM land.
The Project is located approximately three miles northwest of the community of San Mateo, NM and approximately 22 road miles northwest of the community of Grants, NM, within McKinley County. The Project encompasses Sections 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17 in Township 13 North, Range 8 West. Sections 9, 10, and 11 occur on NFS lands; Section 16 is State trust land; and Sections 15 and 17 are privately owned. The Project also includes areas in Section 6 of Township 12 North, Range 9 West, and Section 24 of Township 12 North, Range 10 West, which occur on BLM-administered lands.
Access to the northeastern portion of the project area would occur via an existing non-system road (a road that is not part of the National Forest Transportation System) in Section 11. Access to the southwestern portion would occur along an existing haul route extending from Section 17 through Section 20 to its intersection with NM-605. A rehabilitated existing road in Section 15 would be used as a utility corridor for pipelines and utilities.
Under the Proposed Action, the Forest Service would approve the PoO to mine for uranium under a combination of federal minerals, state-trust minerals lease, and privately held minerals with terms and conditions for the protection of surface resources and any necessary modifications to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The PoO describes infrastructure on NFS lands to support an underground uranium mine on NFS, state, and private lands. The ROW application describes the pipeline that will be constructed through public lands.
Proposed activities on NFS lands include approximately 87 acres of disturbance for dewatering wells, vent shafts, dewatering influent pipelines, development drilling, utility corridors, access roads, and associated road improvements. Proposed activities on State and private lands include a haul road, two production shafts, a water treatment plant, ore bays, waste rock stockpiles, water retention ponds, diversion channel, and a discharge effluent water pipeline resulting in approximately 279 acres of additional disturbance off NFS lands. The pipeline would be constructed within the New Mexico Highway 605 right-of-way and treated water would be discharged into the Rio San Jose in the Village of Milan. The project would not include leach pads, heaps, pits, tailings disposal facilities, or mills. Ore-bearing materials would be hauled off-site by truck to the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah for processing.
Under the Proposed Action, the EPA must consider whether to issue an
The PoO incorporates concurrent reclamation along with final closure, monitoring, and mitigation activities throughout the life of the mine. Mining would be conducted as a conventional underground operation using either a step room-and-pillar or drift-and-fill mining method, depending on specific ore zone characteristics. The estimated lifespan of the Project is approximately 21 years, of which 11 years would be mineral production and the remaining years would consist of construction, reclamation, and closure monitoring activities. Reclamation would begin on portions of Sections 17 and 16 after the end of production. Some Section 17 surface facilities, particularly the water treatment plant, would remain operational throughout the life of the mine. Reclamation of the entire mine, including placement of development rock remaining on the surface back underground, would be completed approximately six years after mining has been completed.
Under the No Action alternative, the proposed mine activities would not occur on NFS lands. An EPA NPDES permit would not be required. The BLM would not approve a right-of-way grant. Other alternatives to be considered in the EIS are expected to be variations of mine and facility configuration based on resource issues identified through the public comment process. The federal agencies welcome comments on potential alternatives.
Substantive issues are those that meaningfully inform the consideration of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed action or a decision on the alternative selected for implementation (7 CFR 1b.11(a)(53)). The following preliminary substantive issues are anticipated to be evaluated, including potential effects to geology and soils at the proposed mine site; hydrologic resources including ground and surface water, aquifers, and springs; local air quality, in particular, exposure of the public to radioactive radon gas vented from mine shafts; vegetation, habitats, and wildlife; nearby land use and recreation and scenic resources; cultural and historic resources; Tribal and traditional communities and uses; local and state workforce and economy; and the potential health and safety risks associated with development to miners and the wider community.
RHR requires Forest Service approval of the PoO. In addition, RHR would need to obtain approvals and authorizations from other regulatory agencies including: ROW Grant with BLM, CWA Section 404 Permit with United States Army Corps of Engineers; CWA Section 402 NPDES Permit with EPA; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Permit with EPA; New Mine Permit with New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department—Mining and Minerals Division (MMD); Discharge Permit with New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Ground Water Quality Bureau; CWA 401 Certifications & Antidegradation Analysis of NPDES and Section 404 Permits with NMED Surface Water Quality Bureau; Air Quality Permit with NMED Air Quality Bureau; Permit to Appropriate Underground Waters with New Mexico Office of the State Engineer; Utility Permit Application with the New Mexico Department of Transportation; Rights-of-way Easement Application with the New Mexico State Land Office.
This notice of intent initiates the NEPA timeline, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. In this process the Agency is requesting comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and identification of any relevant information, studies or analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
It is important that interested members of the public provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, written comments must be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the commenter's concerns and contentions. Commenting during any designated opportunities to comment provided by the Responsible Official will govern eligibility under 36 CFR 218 to object once the EIS and draft Record of Decision have been published. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, they will not be used to establish eligibility for the objection process.
Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during any designated opportunity for written public comment in accordance with § 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated opportunities for comment. This project initiated public comment after the publication of the proposed amendment to the regulations at 36 CFR 218 in the
The Forest Service is the lead federal agency for preparing the EIS. The EPA and BLM are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Because of their specialized expertise and legal jurisdiction, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department MMD and the New Mexico Environment Department are also cooperating agencies.
The Responsible Official for the Forest Service is the Forest Supervisor for the Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands. The Forest Supervisor's decision will address any necessary terms and conditions to the PoO to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to identify mitigation measures under Forest Service jurisdiction.
The Responsible Official for EPA NPDES permitting in New Mexico is the
BLM's Responsible Official is the Rio Puerco Field Office's field manager. The manager will issue a decision record of whether or not to issue a ROW to RHR after environmental review takes place. BLM will also confirm that issuance of the ROW conforms with FLPMA and with relevant land-use plans in the field office.
The Forest Service expects that the proposed action will require a project-specific plan amendment to except the project from certain desired conditions related to tribal, cultural, and water resources to provide consistency with the Cibola National Forest Land Management Plan. The specific plan components included in the project-specific amendment will be determined based on the final proposal and analysis. The 2012 Planning Rule, as amended, requires identification in the initial notice of the amendment of the substantive provisions that are likely to be directly related to the amendment. Based on the anticipated Forest Plan amendment for the Roca Honda Mine Project and requirements of the Planning Rule, the following substantive requirements of the 36 CFR 219 planning regulations would likely be directly related to a proposed amendment: 36 CFR 219.8(a)(1), (2), and (3), regarding ecological sustainability; 36 CFR 219.8(b)(1), (4), and (5), regarding social and economic sustainability; 36 CFR 219.9(a)(1), regarding ecosystem plan components; and 36 CFR 219.10(a)(1), (7), and(9), regarding integrated resource management for multiple use.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The Council is authorized under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Council is responsible for developing a ten-year action plan, evaluating the implementation of that plan annually, and developing criteria and submitting recommendations for the forestry challenge cost-share grant program.
A virtual public meeting will be held on October 13, 2026, at 1 p.m.-4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
All NUCFAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held virtually via telephone and/or video conference. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by joining virtually via videoconference by registering on the GoToWebinar platform link below:
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Council information and meeting details can be found at the following website
Nancy Stremple, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), (202) 205-7829,
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Introduction of NUCFAC members and guests;
2. Forest Service UCF program updates;
3. Discussion and vote on annual recommendations;
4. Discussion and vote on future grant categories;
5. National Ten-Year Action Plan (2027-2037) updates;
6. Public Input; and
7. Next meeting/close.
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee. In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice; rescission.
The NRCS Wyoming State Office, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is rescinding the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the West Fork Battle Creek Watershed Project in Carbon County, Wyoming, which was published in the
Effective upon publication, this notice rescinds the NOI to prepare an EIS (87 FR 79850), which was published in the
Shawn Follum, Wyoming State Conservation Engineer; telephone: (307) 233-6748; email:
The NRCS Wyoming State Office, in coordination with the U.S. Forest Service and the USACE, and consistent with the requirements of 7 CFR 1b.7, is issuing this notice to advise Federal, State, and local government agencies and the public that NRCS will continue the planning process to determine whether an EIS is needed for the West Fork Battle Creek Watershed Project. The project area is located along the Little Snake River Basin in southern Wyoming, in proximity to the town of Baggs, Wyoming. This notice rescinds the NOI to prepare an EIS (87 FR 79850), published on December 28, 2022.
During the watershed planning process, NRCS evaluated several alternatives and determined that the NOI (87 FR 79850) was issued prematurely, and that additional modeling and planning work must be completed to identify all reasonable alternatives and assess whether an EIS is needed. If the planning process indicates that an EIS is appropriate, NRCS will publish a new NOI. The watershed planning process is continuing and will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Any public comment received from the original NOI and scoping period will be considered during Watershed Plan development. Watershed planning is authorized by the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-566), as amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Pub. L. 78-534).
Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting Letters of Interest (LOI) for loan Applications, announcing the Application process for those loans, and providing deadlines for Applications from eligible entities under the Affordable Rural Cooperative (ARC) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2026. In future years this funding opportunity will only be announced on the Agency website and
September 14, 2026.
Full funding notice is available on
Christopher A. McLean, Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, RUS, RD, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1568, Washington, DC 20250-1560; Telephone: 202-690-4492; Email:
The full text of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is available on the Agency website and on
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 8, 2026.
Anjali Mehindiratta at (202) 482-9127 or Travis Hargett at (202) 482-4604 (Canada), Kate Fracke at (202) 482-3299 (People's Republic of China (China)), Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (India), Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 (Republic of Korea (Korea)), and Brittany Bauer at (202) 482-3860 (Mexico), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On July 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain linear hydraulic cylinders and parts thereof (linear hydraulic cylinders) from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico filed in proper form on behalf of the Hydraulic Cylinders Fair Trade Coalition and its individual members, Aggressive Hydraulics Inc., Hol-Mac Corporation, Ligon Hydraulics, Prince Manufacturing Corporation, PTC
Between August 3 and September 2, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
On August 18, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with subsections 732(c)(1)(B) and (4)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because “it is not clear from the Petitions whether the industry support criteria have been met. . . .”
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners allege that imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the linear hydraulic cylinders industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on July 29, 2026, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the Canada, India, Korea, and Mexico LTFV investigations is July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China LTFV investigation is January 1, 2026, through June 30, 2026.
The product covered by these investigations is linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
Between August 3 and September 2, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
Commerce has concerns related to the administrability of certain provisions in the proposed scope. For example, we find that the language pertaining to the definition of covered steel barrels (
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of linear hydraulic cylinders to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOP) or costs of production (COP) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe linear hydraulic cylinders, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 28, 2026, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 8, 2026, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the each of the LTFV investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
On August 18, 2026, after considering interested parties' comments regarding industry support,
Our analysis of the data we received in the polling questionnaire responses indicates that the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; declines in U.S. shipments, production, capacity utilization; and negative impact on financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico, the petitioners based export price (EP) on pricing information for linear hydraulic cylinders produced in each country and sold or offered for sale in the U.S. market during the POI. For each country, the petitioners made certain adjustments to U.S. price to calculate a net ex-factory U.S. price, where applicable.
For Canada, India, Korea, and Mexico, the petitioners calculated NV on home market pricing information obtained through market research for linear hydraulic cylinders produced in and sold, or offered for sale, in the respective countries during the POI.
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.
The petitioners claim that Malaysia, Mexico, and the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye) are appropriate surrogate countries for China because they are market economies that are at levels of economic development comparable to that of China and are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Malaysian, Mexican and Turkish producers/exporters were not reasonably available, the petitioners used a U.S. producer's production experience and product-specific consumption rates as a surrogate to value the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.
As noted above for Korea, the petitioners provided information indicating that certain prices for linear hydraulic cylinders sold or offered for sale in Korea were below the COP. Therefore, for Korea, the petitioners also calculated NV based on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for linear hydraulic cylinders for each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Canada—248.33 to 744.85 percent; (2) China (Malaysia Surrogate)—149.86 to 394.07 percent; China (Mexico Surrogate)—103.05 to 197.07 percent; China (Türkiye Surrogate)—299.38 to 440.48 percent; (3) India—85.31 to 370.67 percent; (4) Korea—73.09 to 158.74 percent; and (5) Mexico—56.79 to 157.12 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that these meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified six companies in Canada, 42 companies in India, 14 companies in Korea, and 55 companies in Mexico as producers and/or exporters of linear hydraulic cylinders.
On September 8, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, India, Korea, and Mexico under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 38 companies in China as producers and/or exporters of linear hydraulic cylinders.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Canada, China, India, Korea, and Mexico via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide copies of the public versions of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from Canada, China, India, Korea, and/or Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act (
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The scope of these investigations covers certain linear acting hydraulic cylinders (also known as hydraulic power engines) and certain components thereof. Covered linear acting hydraulic cylinders have barrels made of steel, a bore size (inner diameter) of 25.4 mm (one inch) or more, and a return (retracted) length of 101.6 mm (four inches) or more (hydraulic cylinders). For purposes of this scope, the return (retracted) length is the overall end-to-end measurement of the hydraulic cylinder unit when in the retracted position. The scope covers all hydraulic cylinders meeting the physical description above, including but not limited to the following hydraulic cylinder designs: tie-rod, welded body, telescopic, plunger, rodless, differential, position sensing, single acting, double acting, displacement, ram type, piggy-back, double rod, rod-fed, and spring return hydraulic cylinders. All hydraulic cylinders are hydraulically activated. The incorporation of a spring into the design of a hydraulic cylinder otherwise meeting the description above does not exclude a product from the scope.
The scope also covers the following components of hydraulic cylinders: (1) steel barrels, (2) steel piston rods, and (3) any part or component of a hydraulic cylinder that is attached to, assembled with or shipped with a covered steel barrel or a covered piston rod.
Covered steel barrels include processed welded or seamless steel tubes four inches (101.6 mm) or more in length with an inner diameter of one inch (25.4 mm) or more, that have had their inner diameter precision machined (such as through honing or skiving and burnishing), and have otherwise been processed to the point of having as their sole or predominant use a barrel for an in-scope hydraulic cylinder. Such processing may include but is not limited to cutting-to-length, end finishing (
Covered piston rods are solid or hollow steel bars or steel tubes at least four inches (101.6 mm) in length that have been hard chrome plated or chrome coated, cut to length, and machined to be a piston rod.
Included in the scope are any other attachments, parts, or components that are imported with, attached to, or invoiced with a hydraulic cylinder or covered barrel or rod, including but not limited to cylinder mounting parts (
Also included in the scope are any hydraulic cylinders and parts meeting the physical description above attached to or imported with any equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When a hydraulic cylinder is attached to or imported with any equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84 of the HTSUS, only the hydraulic cylinder is covered by the scope. The covered hydraulic cylinder in that regard includes everything in between and including the mounting pins (
Subject merchandise also includes covered hydraulic cylinders, barrels and rods that undergo assembly or minor processing in a third country in any manner that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of these investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope hydraulic cylinder. Subject merchandise also includes covered hydraulic cylinders, barrels and rods that are attached to any imported equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84, as discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, if such attachment occurs in a third country.
The products subject to these investigations are currently classified in the HTSUS under statistical reporting numbers 8412.21.0015, 8412.21.0030, 8412.21.0045, 8412.21.0060, 8412.21.0075, and 8412.90.9005. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable September 8, 2026.
Natasia Byrd at (202) 482-1240 or Andrew Hart at (202) 482-1058 (People's Republic of China (China)), Stefan Smith at (202) 482-4342 (India); and Howard Smith at (202) 482-5193 (Mexico), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On July 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of certain linear hydraulic cylinders and parts thereof (linear hydraulic cylinders) from China, India, and Mexico, filed in proper form on behalf of the Hydraulic Cylinders Fair Trade Coalition and its individual members, Aggressive Hydraulics Inc., Hol-Mac Corporation, Ligon Hydraulics, Prince Manufacturing Corporation, PTC Alliance LLC, Rosenboom Machine and Tool Inc., Scot Industries Inc., Stillwell Inc., and Texas Hydraulics Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), domestic producers of hydraulic cylinders.
Between August 3 and September 2, 2026, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
On August 18, 2026, Commerce extended the initiation deadline by 20 days to poll the domestic industry in accordance with subsections 702(c)(1)(B) and (4)(D) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), because “it is not clear from the Petitions whether the industry support criteria have been met. . . .”
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, the petitioners allege that the Government of China (GOC), the Government of India (GOI), and the Government of Mexico (GOI) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of linear hydraulic cylinders in the respective countries and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing linear hydraulic cylinders in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating CVD investigations, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (F) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on July 29, 2026, the POI for each of the CVD investigations is January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
The products covered by these investigations are linear hydraulic cylinders from China, India, and Mexico. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
Between August 3 and September 2, 2026, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
Commerce has concerns related to the administrability of certain provisions in the proposed scope. For example, we find that language pertaining to the definition of covered steel barrels (
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOC, GOI, and GOM of the receipt of the Petitions and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petitions.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
On August 18, 2026, after considering comments regarding industry support filed by several interested parties,
Our analysis of the data we received in the polling questionnaire responses indicates that the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.
Because China, India, and Mexico are “Subsidies Agreement Countries” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China, India, and/or Mexico materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in U.S. shipments, production, capacity utilization; and negative impact on financial performance.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating CVD investigations to determine whether imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from China, India, and Mexico benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC, GOI, and GOM. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 21 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 33 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
Based on our review of the Petitions, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 23 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petitions, the petitioners identified 38 companies in China, 42 companies in India, and 55 companies in Mexico as producers/exporters of linear hydraulic cylinders.
On September 8, 2026, Commerce released CBP data on imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from China, India, and Mexico under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the GOC, GOI, and GOM via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date on which the ITC receives notice from Commerce of initiation of the investigations, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of linear hydraulic cylinders from China, India, and/or Mexico are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The scope of these investigations covers certain linear acting hydraulic cylinders (also known as hydraulic power engines) and certain components thereof. Covered linear acting hydraulic cylinders have barrels made of steel, a bore size (inner diameter) of 25.4 mm (one inch) or more, and a return (retracted) length of 101.6 mm (four inches) or more (hydraulic cylinders). For purposes of this scope, the return (retracted) length is the overall end-to-end measurement of the hydraulic cylinder unit when in the retracted position. The scope covers all hydraulic cylinders meeting the physical description above, including but not limited to the following hydraulic cylinder designs: tie-rod, welded body, telescopic, plunger, rodless, differential, position sensing, single acting, double acting, displacement, ram type, piggy-back, double rod, rod-fed, and spring return hydraulic cylinders. All hydraulic cylinders are hydraulically activated. The incorporation of a spring into the design of a hydraulic cylinder otherwise meeting the description above does not exclude a product from the scope.
The scope also covers the following components of hydraulic cylinders: (1) steel barrels, (2) steel piston rods, and (3) any part or component of a hydraulic cylinder that is attached to, assembled with or shipped with a covered steel barrel or a covered piston rod.
Covered steel barrels include processed welded or seamless steel tubes four inches (101.6 mm) or more in length with an inner diameter of one inch (25.4 mm) or more, that have had their inner diameter precision machined (such as through honing or skiving and burnishing), and have otherwise been processed to the point of having as their sole or predominant use a barrel for an in-scope hydraulic cylinder. Such processing may include but is not limited to cutting-to-length, end finishing (
Covered piston rods are solid or hollow steel bars or steel tubes at least four inches (101.6 mm) in length that have been hard chrome plated or chrome coated, cut to length, and machined to be a piston rod.
Included in the scope are any other attachments, parts, or components that are imported with, attached to, or invoiced with a hydraulic cylinder or covered barrel or rod, including but not limited to cylinder mounting parts (
Also included in the scope are any hydraulic cylinders and parts meeting the physical description above attached to or imported with any equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). When a hydraulic cylinder is attached to or imported with any equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84 of the HTSUS, only the hydraulic cylinder is covered by the scope. The covered hydraulic cylinder in that regard includes everything in between and including the mounting pins (
Subject merchandise also includes covered hydraulic cylinders, barrels and rods that undergo assembly or minor processing in a third country in any manner that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of these investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope hydraulic cylinder. Subject merchandise also includes covered hydraulic cylinders, barrels and rods that are attached to any imported equipment or parts of equipment classified in Chapter 84, as discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, if such attachment occurs in a third country.
The products subject to these investigations are currently classified in the HTSUS under statistical reporting numbers 8412.21.0015, 8412.21.0030, 8412.21.0045, 8412.21.0060, 8412.21.0075, and 8412.90.9005. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that 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 17 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Krisha Hill or Maria Teresa Aymerich, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-0499, 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 antidumping duty (AD) order on raw honey from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the scope of this
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an
After further review of the CBP data, we determined that Huong Rung and Viet Thanh had entries of subject merchandise during the POR under slightly different or abbreviated names.
In the absence of any suspended entries of subject merchandise from the companies listed in Appendix II during the POR, we are rescinding this administrative review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Vietnam is a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results,
We preliminarily determine that, in addition to BMT and DakHoney, eight companies not individually examined are eligible for separate rates in this administrative review. These eight companies are: (1) Bao Nguyen Honeybee Co., Ltd.; (2) Daisy Honey Bee JSC; Daisy Honey Bee J.S.C.; Daisy Honey Bee Joint Stock Company; (3) Dak Nguyen Hong Exploitation of Honey Company Limited TA; Nguyen Hong Honey Co., LTDTA; (4) Dongnai HoneyBee Corporation; (5) Hoa Viet Honey Bee Co., Ltd.; Hoa Viet Honeybee One Member Company Limited; Hoa Viet Honeybee Co., Ltd.; (6) Hoang Tri Honey Bee Company Limited; H.T. Honey Co., Ltd.; (7) Huong Rung Co., Ltd.; Huong Rung Trading—Investment and Export Company; and (8) Spring Honeybee Co., Ltd.
The Act does not address the establishment of a separate rate for non-examined companies when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review covering a non-market economy 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 separate rate 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. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.109(f) state that for non-examined companies, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for each of the individually examined companies, excluding zero and
For the preliminary results of this review, Commerce has determined the estimated dumping margins for BMT to be 30.21 percent and DakHoney to be 39.61 percent. For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, we assigned the separate rate companies a dumping margin equal to the simple average of BMT's and
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following companies do not qualify for a separate rate and are, thus, part of the Vietnam-wide entity and subject to the Vietnam-wide rate: (1) Hanoi Honey Bee Joint Stock Company; (2) Huong Viet Honey Co., Ltd.; (3) Southern Honey Bee Co., Ltd.; and (4) Viet Thanh Food Co., Ltd.; Viet Thanh Food Technology Development Investment Company Limited.
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the Vietnam-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following 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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
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.
If an individually examined respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. Consequently, the rate established for the non-individually examined companies is an
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by the mandatory respondents during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide rate.
For the companies listed in Appendix II 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
For the final results, if we continue to treat the four companies identified in the “Separate Rates” section above as part of the Vietnam-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
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 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 cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam 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 the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
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 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Adisseo España S.A., the sole producer and exporter subject to this administrative review, made sales of methionine from Spain at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Joshua Jacobson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance,
On March 12, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in the appendix to this notice.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties regarding the
For these final results, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR, September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results of review 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
Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review.
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced or exported by Adisseo for which Adisseo did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 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 equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the “Final Results of Review”; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not subject to this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be 37.53 percent
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. 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.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that C.S. Aluminium Corporation (CSAC) made no shipments of common alloy aluminum sheet (CAAS) during the period of review (POR), April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Sarah Keith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0264.
On May 14, 2026, Commerce published the
The product covered by the scope of the
In the
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined in these final results of this review, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
Because we have determined that CSAC had no shipments of subject
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that Booyoung Industry (BYI), and Daechang Co., Ltd. (Daechang), producers and exporters of brass rod from the Republic of South Korea (Korea), made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) December 1, 2023, through May 31, 2025. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Stephanie Trejo, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4390.
On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass rod from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Due to the lapse in appropriations and federal government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled the deadline of the preliminary results by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events between the initiation of this review and these preliminary results,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce calculated export prices and constructed export prices in accordance with section 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period December 1, 2023, 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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
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 (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 an individually examined respondent'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 an individually examined respondent's 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.
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.
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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing 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).
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 glycine from India. In addition, Commerce is rescinding this review, in part, with respect to 27 companies. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Amber Hodak, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8034.
On June 21, 2019, Commerce published in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 17, 2025, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received a timely filed withdrawal of review requests with respect to the companies listed in Appendix II, and no other parties requested a review of these companies. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review, in part, with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of a countervailing duty order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do 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(e)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a CVD investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.”
Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero,
For these preliminary results, because the rate calculated for Mulji is based entirely on adverse facts available, we are preliminarily assigning to the company under review that was not selected for individual examination (
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary
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.
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 CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the companies listed in Appendix II for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing 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 for the companies listed in Appendix II no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.107(e), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated individual countervailable subsidy rates determined in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
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 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 Cuarzo and Beyyond Rocks Private Limited (Beyyond) (collectively, Cuarzo/Beyyond) made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025. Additionally, Commerce preliminarily determines that Pokarna Engineered Stone Limited (PESL) did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than NV during the POR. Furthermore, we are rescinding the review with respect to 53 companies and intend to rescind the review with respect to four companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Charles Doss, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474.
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 certain quartz surface products (QSP) from India.
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 merchandise subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received a timely-filed withdrawal request with respect to the following companies for which no other party requested an administrative review: (1) Global Stones Pvt Ltd.; (2) Global Surfaces Ltd.; (3) Pacific Industries Limited; (4) Pacific Quartz Surfaces LLP; and (5) Quartzkraft LLP. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
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.
It is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended. As noted above, normally, upon completion of an administrative review, the suspended entries are liquidated at the AD assessment rate calculated for the POR.
According to the CBP data on the record, the following four companies subject to this review did not have reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended: (1) Glossy Imp. & Exp. Private Ltd; (2) Inani Marble Industries; (3) PM Quartz Surfaces Private Ltd.; and (4) Stone Imp. & Exp. (India) Private Ltd.
Accordingly, in the absence of reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we intend to rescind this administrative review with respect to these four companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Commerce is providing interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments, including factual information, on this intent to rescind the administrative review with respect to these four companies. Comments, including factual information, from interested parties are due to Commerce no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on September 15, 2026. Rebuttal comments, including rebuttal factual information, are due seven days thereafter, by 5:00 p.m. ET on September 22, 2026. All submissions must be filed electronically at
On July 30, 2025, Jyothi Granite Exports India Pvt. Ltd. (Jyothi Granite) timely filed a statement reporting that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are 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,
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, 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by applying the methodology set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the methodology for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 735(c)(5) of the Act.
Under 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1) and section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, 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,
Because we used a sampling methodology for respondent selection in this review, the rate for companies not selected for individual examination is assigned using a calculated sample rate, based upon the average of the rates for the selected respondents, weighted by the import share of their sampling pool.
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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in issuing its final results with respect to Cuarzo/Beyyond.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this review. 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.
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 the weighted-average dumping margin for Cuarzo/Beyyond or PESL is not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Cuarzo/Beyyond or PESL 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 the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, 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 the companies listed in Appendix III 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
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP regarding Cuarzo/Beyyond, PESL, and the companies listed in Appendix II 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 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,
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
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 and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing 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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Jonathan Hall-Eastman or Stephanie Trejo, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6467, or (202) 482-4390, respectively.
On August 6, 2026, Commerce published the
A “ministerial error” is defined as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which {Commerce} considers ministerial.”
Commerce's regulations stipulate that the agency will disclose its calculations to parties to the proceeding and that those parties may submit comments concerning any ministerial error in such calculations.
AHSTAC alleges that Commerce made two ministerial errors in the calculations underlying the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the
For a complete discussion of the ministerial error allegation, as well as Commerce's analysis, see the accompanying Ministerial Error Memorandum.
As a result of correcting the ministerial errors described above, Commerce determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the following producers/exporters for which this expedited review is being conducted for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these amended final results of review to interested parties within five
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(l)(3)(ii), the final results of this expedited review are not the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these amended final results, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these amended final results of expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These amended final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 777(i)(1), 777A(e), and 782 of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(l) and 351.224(e).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that NEXCO S.A. (NEXCO) and Villamora S.A. (Villamora), and the non-individually-examined companies for which a review was requested made sales of raw honey from 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 14, 2026.
Jun Jack Zhao or Scott Davison, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1396 or (202) 482-1015, respectively.
On July 25, 2025, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on raw honey (honey) from Argentina.
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 merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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,
There are 34 companies for which a review was requested and Commerce does not intend to rescind review, which had reviewable entries, and
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
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 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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
On November 3, 2025, the American Honey Producers Association, the petitioners, requested that Commerce conduct verification of NEXCO S.A. and Villamora's responses.
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 (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 NEXCO S.A.'s and Villamora'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 NEXCO S.A. and Villamora 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 companies involved in the transaction.
For the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, 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.
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 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 Melbras Importadora E Exportadora Agroindústria Ltda. (Melbras) and Minamel Agroindústria Ltda. (Minamel) 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 11 companies. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Miranda Bourdeau, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
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 (AD) order on raw honey (honey) from Brazil.
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 merchandise subject to the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. As noted above, Commerce received a timely-filed withdrawal of request for review with respect to Apis Nativa. Therefore, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Apis Nativa, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order where it concludes that there were no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are 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,
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
In this administrative review, we preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins for the mandatory respondents, Melbras and Minamel, that are not zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following 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 accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
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 30 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.
If Melbras' and Minamel's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during
For the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, 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 the companies listed in Appendix III 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 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 Citribel nv. (Citribel) did not sell subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Deborah Cohen, AD/CVD Operations,
On July 25, 2018, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD) order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Belgium in the
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 merchandise covered by this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act. Export price has been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, and NV was calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On February 6, 2026, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Primary Products Ingredients Americas LLC, domestic interested parties, requested that Commerce conduct verification of Citribel's responses. Accordingly, in August 2026, as provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified Citribel's information relied upon for the preliminary results of this review.
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2024, through June 30, 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. 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) and (d)(2), 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. 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 intends to hold a hearing at a date and time to be determined.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Citribel for which the producer did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review 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 Citribel will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
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 in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that producers or exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Jinny Ahn, AD/CVD Operations, Office
On June 21, 2019, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan.
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 17, 2025, Commerce tolled deadlines for this administrative proceeding by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events following the initiation of this administrative review,
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act. Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation. On October 23, 2025, Commerce received a timely filed withdrawal of review requests with respect to: (1) Ajinomoto Co., Inc., (2) Ajinomoto Healthcare, Inc., (3) Sojitz Corporation, and (4) Sojitz Logistics Corporation, and no other parties requested a review of these companies.
We preliminarily determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exists for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025.
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed 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.
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, U.S. Department of
All submissions, including case and rebuttal briefs, as well as hearing requests, should be filed via ACCESS.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon completion of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
For Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Ajinomoto Healthcare, Inc., Sojitz Corporation, and Sojitz Logistics Corporation, for which we are rescinding this administrative review, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period of review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). For Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Ajinomoto Healthcare, Inc., Sojitz Corporation., and Sojitz Logistics Corporation, Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication in the
This notice 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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2026.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The applicant submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This project would continue an ongoing jig survey of the groundfish resource in the EGOM, going back to 2011. The Atlantic Cod Stock Assessment Workshop identified cod in statistical areas 511 and 512 as a separate biological stock, and, as a result, the research track has accepted the Sentinel Survey's inshore jig time series for inclusion as a recruitment index for the EGOM stock unit's assessment.
The EFP would authorize 2 vessels to conduct random stratified sampling using jig gear from 0 to 50 m at 36 sites, plus 9 fishermen's choice sites within the study area, for a total of 45 sites. Jig gear consists of a 16- or 26-oz (453.6- or 737.1-gram) Norwegian style diamond jig with three teaser hooks, spaced at 15 inches (38.1 centimeters) apart. At each site, two anglers would execute five 5-minute jig drops within 1 hour. Gear would be retrieved upon the first bite or at the 5-minute mark, whichever comes first.
All species captured would be weighed and measured. Photos and fin clips would be collected from all cod, and a subset of cod (no more than 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) per trip) would have otoliths and stomach samples collected. Catch that are lethally sampled could be landed for personal use. All other catch would be returned to the ocean once sampling is complete. Scientific personnel from Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries would be aboard the vessels to conduct sampling activities. No catch would be landed for sale.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA regulations for taking marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys related to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America (GOA), notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to TGS for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOA.
The LOA is effective September 9, 2026, through September 1, 2027.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 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.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 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).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOA
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
On August 28, 2025, NMFS Office of Protected Resources received a request from NMFS Office of Policy for reimplementation of the current incidental take regulation (ITR) to avoid a lapse in ITRs offering incidental take coverage for GOA geophysical survey activities. On October 20, 2025, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the original petitioner for the current ITRs) submitted a request to be included in the process as a co-petitioner. In response to these requests, NMFS issued a new final rule, effective April 20, 2026, through April 19, 2031 (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
The reimplementation of the regulations continues the established framework for authorization of incidental take through LOAs. The final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, and there are no changes to the associated mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
TGS plans to conduct a three-dimensional (3D) ocean-bottom node (OBN) survey over approximately 600 lease blocks in the East Breaks and Alaminos Canyon areas, with water depths ranging from approximately 900 to 3,200 meters (m).
TGS plans to use a low-frequency airgun source known as Gemini (also referred to as a dual barbell source). Gemini airgun arrays will fire using the “Seismic Apparition” method, with a single-source vessel towing six sources (100-m separation), firing within 120 milliseconds with a predetermined dither to each source; no sources will fire simultaneously at any time.
Gemini was not included in the acoustic exposure modeling developed in support of the rule. However, Gemini was described and evaluated in support of a previous LOA, and we rely on that analysis here (88 FR 72739, October 23, 2023). For additional details regarding sources, see section C of the LOA application. Based on this information we have determined there will be no effects of magnitude or intensity different from those evaluated in support of the rule. NMFS therefore expects that use of modeling results supporting the final rule relating to use of airgun arrays is expected to be conservative as a proxy for use in evaluating potential impacts of use of Gemini.
Consistent with the preamble to the 2026 final rule, the survey effort proposed by TGS in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in the preamble (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
NMFS previously issued a LOA to TGS on June 26, 2026, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a 3D OBN survey in the East Breaks and Alaminos Canyon areas, effective September 1, 2026, through September 1, 2027. Please see the
On August 25, 2026, TGS informed NMFS that its planned survey area had shifted and, accordingly, they requested a new LOA based on the updated survey area. This new LOA will replace the LOA previously issued to TGS.
The updated survey plan includes 102 total days of sound source operation with 74 days in zone 6 and 28 days in zone 7. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, though we assume that the planned 102 days of source operation would occur contiguously. Take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value and have been updated based on the revised survey plan.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 7 of the rule (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026).
Under the rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios (except in the cases where the take estimate has been rounded up to reflect a group size) to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (91 FR 20784, April 17, 2026). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 91 FR 20784, 20812, April 17, 2026). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of TGS's proposed survey activity described in its LOA request and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued a LOA to TGS, authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2026.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR) submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict to test alternative gear retrieval systems that only use one traditional surface buoy. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This EFP would allow federally permitted vessels to test alternative gears to reduce entanglement risk to protected species, mainly the North Atlantic right whale, in trap/pot and sink gillnet fisheries. There would be two components to this EFP, a gear library component, which is an assortment of devices and technologies to retrieve gear, and a gear geolocation component.
This EFP would build on the research conducted by ME DMR under previous EFPs, with DA25-005 being the most recent. Since the start of this project and under previously issued EFPs, ME DMR has conducted 6,715 trap/pot hauls as part of the gear library component. Of these, 2,170 hauls were conducted under the most recent EFP (DA25-005), which became effective December 1, 2025. No hauls have been conducted with gillnet gear, and 55 hauls, which did not use active fishing traps, have been completed as part of the gear geolocation component.
For the gear library component, participating vessels would replace one traditional surface marking with their choice of alternative gear available in the Maine Innovative Gear Library. Currently, there are several options, including, but not limited to: (1) buoy and stowed rope systems (
For the geolocation component, vessels would use acoustic positioning systems from Teledyne Benthos, Ropeless Systems, Ashored, Sub Sea Sonics, Edgetech, or Advanced Navigation. Each of these systems uses a surface unit to communicate with a unit on the seafloor to determine the gear's geolocation, associated with whichever gear is attached. This may differ significantly from the geolocation provided by the surface buoy or surface GPS marking upon deployment, the extent of which ME DMR is proposing to investigate, alongside the performance of these systems in an acoustic environment where multiple signals are being transmitted simultaneously. Vessels would set up to three trawls at different distances apart, within a one-kilometer radius. Trawls would be allowed to soak no longer than 1 hour each. Up to 10 discrete, single-day gear geolocation trials would be conducted within the fishing year, resulting in a maximum of 150 gear retrievals. In instances where traps are used, they would not have fresh bait. These trials would increase trap/pot effort via short soaks and a high rate of retrieval. However, catch per unit effort would be reduced.
ME DMR researchers anticipate, for the gear library component, up to 6,240 trap/pot trawl retrievals and up to 500 gillnet string retrievals, and up to an additional 150 retrievals of trap/pot trawls for the geolocation component. Trap trawls would be consistent with Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations. Trawls would not exceed 50 traps per trawl. The gear library component trawls would soak for no shorter than 3 days and no longer than 30 days. Gillnets would be consistent with ALWTRP and Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan regulations. Gillnets would use 15-30.5 centimeter mesh, would not exceed 3,200 meters, and are estimated to soak for no more than 24 hours. Any legal catch would be sold to a dealer.
To maximize data collection and participation, ME DMR requests flexibility to modify the participant vessel list with the ability to list up to 65 total vessels, consisting of up to 7 gillnet vessels, with the rest consisting of trap/pot vessels.
ME DMR or partnering organizations and a representative from gear manufacturers would distribute gear and train all participants on its use. Scientific observers may accompany the participants on up to two trips per vessel, within budget and safety limitations. ME DMR would provide standardized data collection sheets to all participants. Individually identifiable data would only be made available via consent of the participants.
ME DMR has proposed the following best practices and risk management:
• Buoy lines associated with this project would contain unique white and blue markings above the required regional markings;
• Weekly mandatory gear loss reporting;
• After release, the on demand vertical line would be retrieved as quickly as possible to minimize time in the water column;
• Visual right whale sightings would be recorded on data sheets and fishermen would notify NMFS via email (
• Typical soak time is anticipated to be less than 14 days and no longer than 30 days (weather permitting and without unforeseen circumstances);
• Project vessels would adhere to a 10-knot (5.1 meters per second) speed limit when transiting dynamic management areas, transiting areas closed to vertical lines, and/or whales are observed;
• Law enforcement agencies, including Maine Marine Patrol and NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, would be notified of project participants and activities in advance of the project start date. Materials related to the redeployment of alternative retrieval gear systems would be provided along with this notice. Law enforcement would be able to inspect gear at any time as usual, because at least one traditional endline would be present at all times. Law enforcement would be provided with the information necessary to continue relevant enforcement operations with participant gear;
• Trap Tracker or an equivalent application would be utilized for acoustic on-demand retrieval and set positioning details and would be available to Federal, State, and corresponding enforcement personnel;
• Gear locations would be available to those who have downloaded gear marking applications, but otherwise locations would be treated with sensitivity to mitigate the possibility of gear molestation from members of the public who oppose project activities;
• Project updates would be updated through the ME DMR website for public awareness of general activities related to this EFP; and
• Premature deployments of on-demand gear would be documented and would be retrieved as soon as circumstances (
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, has submitted an information collection request (ICR) for the AmeriCorps State and National Application Instructions.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Colleen Holohan, Acting Deputy Director, AmeriCorps State and National, 202-606-6656, or by email at
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment on this information collection was published in the
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting: in person.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, the Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory committee meeting will take place.
The meeting will be held on Friday, October 9, 2026, 9-11:30 a.m. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting will be required to show a government photo ID upon entering in order to gain access to the meeting location. All members of the public are subject to security screening.
The meeting will be held at the United States Military Academy, in the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, 758 Cullum Road, West Point, New York 10996.
Mr. David Nagle, the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, in writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, United States Military Academy ATTN: David Nagle, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at:
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The USMA BoV provides independent advice and recommendations to the President of the United States on matters related to morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and any other matters relating to the Academy that the Board decides to consider.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the committee during the meeting. However, the committee Designated Federal Official and Chairperson may choose to invite certain submitters to present their comments verbally during the open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the committee Chairperson, may allot a specific amount of time for submitters to present their comments verbally.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
On November 13, 2025, the Department of Education published in the
These revisions apply to the notice published on November 13, 2025.
Matthew Soldner, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5C133, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7441.
The Department's November 13, 2025, notice (90 FR 50940) requested OMB's review of, and public comment related to, the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 20256-26 through 2026-27. This document revises the discussion provided there in accordance with the remand in
The Department's implementation timeline for ACTS—which currently results in its collection launching during the 2025-26 Winter Collection period—is driven by a confluence of public policy goals, operational factors, and statistical purposes.
The primary purpose of the ACTS collection is to provide transparency to consumers about college admissions practices hence the name “Admissions Consumer Transparency Supplement” (see: Presidential Memorandum;
Here, the Department seeks to make admissions transparency data available to students and parents as quickly as possible—ideally to inform decision-making for students as they are applying to colleges. The public is best served if that data can be made available as soon as possible so students and parents can be informed as they decide where to apply before critical fall application deadlines. To achieve that goal, the Department must take its first available opportunity to collect data on outcomes associated with institutions' admissions practices.
Operationally, the Department's first available—and most logical—opportunity to do so is as part of the IPEDS 2025-26 Winter Collection. The Department believes that the timing of the ACTS component should align to the timing of the Winter Collection because (a) the ACTS component seeks to understand the outcomes associated with institutions' admissions practices and (b) the IPEDS Admissions component is currently included in the IPEDS Winter Collection. Notwithstanding this conceptual link, the Department believes these collections are operationally linked in their execution on campus. To the extent the latter are a disaggregation of the former, the foundational data required to complete the IPEDS Admissions component and the admissions-related elements of ACTS are fundamentally the same. The Department determined that modifying the existing Admissions component to capture the admissions-related data elements that are now part of ACTS would be more disruptive to institutions, the Department's data collection contractor, and the integrity of the existing IPEDS survey system,
Taken together, the Department's public policy goals and IPEDS operational considerations informed the development of the ACTS component's timeline as first described in the 60-day notice (90 FR 39384). Comments received in response to the 60-day notice highlighted additional factors that reinforced to the Department that the initial Winter timeline was necessary to meet its secondary purpose: to collect data that will enable policymakers and researchers to address longstanding questions about outcomes associated with college admissions practices. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at pages 11 and 20); (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at pages 16, 19, 20, and 21); (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at page 39); (
Regarding the secondary purpose, two factors are in opposition: (1) statistical approaches by which policymakers and researchers can estimate the effect of
Prior to the publication of the 60-day notice, the Department anticipated that the most likely approaches to estimating the effect of
Although confidence in the validity of time series analyses can be affected by multiple factors, one important factor is the extent to which the pre-policy and post-policy level and trend is accurately estimated. Generally, more observations pre- and post-policy lend accuracy and credibility to that estimation. (
For the Department to collect the number of pre-
Commenters to that 60-day notice expressed concern that institutions' records retention policies might prevent institutions from providing these data for all years required by the ACTS collection. In evaluating the potential impact of this issue, the Department sought to identify which aspects of the ACTS collection might be affected by statutory or regulatory requirements related to records retention. The Department determined that such requirements might result in some institutions being unable to report data related to federal student aid awards made four or more years prior to the current financial aid year. In this case, this meant that financial aid data might be available for only the 2025-26, 2024-25, 2023-24, and 2022-23 school years—placing potentially important contextual data for 2021-22 admissions “at risk” of being unreportable. That these and other important data might be lost should ACTS implementation not occur as part of the 2025-26 cycle further reinforced the Department's rationale that ACTS should proceed as planned.
IPEDS data are currently collected and processed by RTI International (RTI), which has participated in the IPEDS data collection for more than 20 years. (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at page 13,
In developing the contents of the ACTS component, the Department sought to minimize burden on institutions by building upon longstanding IPEDS variables and definitions. (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at pages 14-15, and page 22); (see: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at pages 6, 7, 16-17,
Although the bulk of the variables upon which the ACTS collection is based already exist within IPEDS, the collection itself is not duplicative. Indeed, what distinguishes the present collection is its intentional disaggregation. Disaggregation, including by race-sex pair and quintiles of admissions test scores, is central to the transparency goals of the collection itself. As we discuss in more detail below, absent this level of disaggregation, potential applicants and their families would be unable to make a data-informed decision about their likelihood of admission to the school or schools of their choice.
Despite the extensive reliance on existing IPEDS instrumentation, several commenters to the Department's 60-day notice expressed concerns about the quality of data that would be generated in response to the ACTS collection and the Department clarified there are procedures in place to ensure data quality, including those that will detect and correct errors in the data (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at page 15,
Here, the Department clarifies that there are two distinct quality assurance steps within the ACTS collection—and that the “mid-2026” quality assurance process referred to in its 30-day notice is the second of the two.
The first quality assurance/quality control step, where the values of selected ACTS variables are compared to similar, previously reported values from other IPEDS components, takes place after data are uploaded by the institution to the IPEDS Data Collection System and prior to an institution's finalization of their ACTS submission (also known as “locking”).
The second quality assurance step takes place after the ACTS data collection concludes and locked data is migrated from the Data Collection System to RTI's operational systems for processing and analysis. This second step emphasizes the discovery and correction of unlikely, implausible, or logically inconsistent data values and consultation with institutions to co-evaluate the accuracy of submitted data. Because the ACTS data had not been collected at the time the Department filed its 30-day notice, and because migrated data would not be available for inspection until well after the closing of the ACTS collection, the Department necessarily deferred any substantive discussion of steps RTI might take in this second quality assurance step in order to tailor the process to the specific circumstances uncovered following submission. A complete summary of this second step will not be available until
Neither the Presidential Memorandum nor the Secretary's Directive sought to exhaustively enumerate the specific variables needed to achieve the goals and purposes of the ACTS component. Rather, the full enumeration was determined by the Department. The Department believes that each variable included in ACTS, and each year of data for which those variables are gathered, are necessary to achieve the collection's purposes and goals.
As described above, the first purpose of the ACTS collection is consumer transparency. (see: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at pages 19-20); (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at page 16); (
The second purpose of ACTS, as stated above, is to permit policymakers and researchers to begin to address longstanding questions about the role of race in college admissions. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 11); (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at pages 16, 19, 20, and 21); (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at page 39); (
Contextual variables provide additional detail about the demographic characteristics of enrolled students and potential indicators of their readiness to pursue college-level coursework. Examples of contextual variables include enrollees' (1) Pell grant eligibility (a proxy for low-income status), (2) parental education, (3) need for remedial coursework, and (4) enrollment in other forms of non-credit instruction. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 15-16); (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at page 14-15); (
Data on students' financial aid awards once enrolled have the potential to shed light on institutions' use of them, if any, to shape the characteristics of their incoming class, (see: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at pages 4-
Finally, ACTS gathers data that has the potential to provide a more fine-grained picture of the academic outcomes yielded by institutional admissions practices. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 15); (see: Appendix E FRN 60-day Comment Responses at page 14-15); (
The Department collects a similar set of ACTS data regarding graduate student admissions, (contextual data listed above for undergraduates are not collected for graduate students). However, unlike undergraduate data, which are collected at the level of the institution, graduate data are further disaggregated by broad field of study. The Department does so because it is aware that while undergraduate admissions are usually a centralized function housed within a single office, graduate admissions may be separately administered at the level of a college or Department. As a result, while an institution may have a uniform set of admissions practices for undergraduate students, those practices for graduate students may vary widely across its academic units. The Department believes that the value of the ACTS data would be significantly diminished for graduate student applicants and researchers should this potential variability not be taken into account, and as such requires further disaggregation by broad fields of study despite the additional burden it may present to institutions. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 17,
As discussed earlier, the Department's impetus for aligning the ACTS component to the IPEDS Winter Collection is driven by several factors, including a desire to make the resulting data available to families at a useful point in their admissions decision-making process and to ensure the availability of time series data that support fulsome analysis of institutional practice both before and after
The Department believes this variation can be undertaken without risk to the data collection itself. Throughout the development of the ACTS collection, the Department has been confident in institutions' ability to provide high-quality data in response to its request. As noted above and elsewhere, much of this confidence derives from the Department's belief that much of the data included in the ACTS collection are reported elsewhere in IPEDS. (See: ACTS Supporting Statement Part B Revision 3 at page 5); (see: Appendix E FRN 60-Day Comment Responses at pages 14-15); (see: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 7 and pages 16-17); (
Given the time-sensitive nature of the ACTS collection, the potential for the value of the ACTS data to diminish should collection be delayed, and the Department's confidence at the time it filed its 30-day notice that both institutions and the Department's data collection contractor were prepared to successfully execute upon the collection's requirements, the Department determined to launch the collection on its initial timeline.
The Department takes its privacy obligations seriously, including those based in the Privacy Act and the Education Sciences Reform Act. As is noted in materials filed as part of the Department's 30-day notice, (90 FR 50940); (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at pages 22, 24, and 26,
At no time is the Department in possession of student-level data that it believes constitutes a record as defined by the Privacy Act. All Department contractors are expected to abide by applicable law and regulation in the conduct of their work on behalf of the Department. This includes the contractors' stated obligations to protect sensitive data and information and Privacy Act-protected information “from unauthorized access, use or misuse by its contractor employees, prevent unauthorized access by others, and report any instances of unauthorized access.”
Above, the Department outlines its justification for collecting data at the level of disaggregation required by the ACTS component. Briefly, the
In materials filed as part of the Department's 30-day notice, we note the need to “prepare for the circumstance in which small cell sizes may inadvertently create the opportunity for the identification of an individual and their circumstances” and that various statistical disclosure limitation (SDL) techniques are available to it to mitigate potential disclosure risks, (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part B Revision 3 at page 4,
Any statistical outputs (
The Department has designed the IPEDS ACTS data collection process to ensure consistency with Privacy Act requirements. As the Department noted on page 25 of the IPEDS data collection Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3, “the data collected in the student-level file does not contain any Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Institutions will assign their own ID numbers, distinct from the student's Social Security Number or institutional identification number, to be used in the Student ID field.” (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at page 25,
As noted above, the Department believes that much of the data included as part of the ACTS component is already reported elsewhere in IPEDS or, as is noted in the Department's 30-day notice, otherwise available to institutions, (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part B Revision 3 at page 5,
As is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Department sought to estimate the burden associated with the ACTS component. To develop the estimate, the Department first reviewed the burden estimates associated with existing survey components as outlined in Supporting Statement Part A Change Package 102925, (see: Supporting Statement Part A Change Package 102925 at page 33,
The Department then considered the burden-reduction impact of the alternative data collection methodology proposed for the ACTS collection, in which institutions prepare student-level data files in accordance with a template which are then either (a) aggregated locally using statistical code provided by RTI or (b) uploaded to RTI's aggregator tool to be aggregated within their system. Although it was impossible to precisely quantify the potential reduction in burden the methodology represented, the Department felt that it was dramatic, exceeding 50 percent. Ultimately, the Department concluded that a reasonable estimate of the burden was five weeks (25 business days) of full-time work (8 hours) each day to complete the ACTS component, or 200 total hours per institution. Notably, the Department's proposed timeline for the ACTS collection—which ran from December 18, 2025, through March 18, 2026—included 65 business days. (See: Appendix F FRN 30-day Comment Responses at page 21); (see: ACTS Supporting Statement Part A Revision 3 at page 32); (
As mentioned above, the Department has sufficient resources to administer the ACTS survey and utilize the results, by primarily relying on contractors to manage, collect, and process the data for IPEDS. This has been common practice for the bulk of the years IPEDS data has been collected dating back to the 1980s. The support of contractors in substantial data collection efforts is common practice in the Federal government. Between the current contracting service utilized by the Department, and another contractor whose services for IPEDS will overlap with the current contractor for the next year, the Department will retain support for the services needed to collect and process IPEDS data.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, October 14, 2026; 6-8 p.m. EDT.
Department of Energy (DOE) Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831. This meeting will be held in-person at the DOE Information Center and virtually. To receive the virtual access information, please send an email to:
Melyssa P. Noe, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM), P.O. Box 4067, EM-94, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; Phone (865) 241-3315; or Email:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Exempt Wholesale Generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On May 21, 2026, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP26-527-000 requesting Authorization pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Majorsville-Heard Storage Complex Abandonment Project (Project) and would eliminate Columbia's need for continued operating and maintenance of facilities that are no longer required to meet Columbia's current firm service obligations.
On June 5, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application 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.
Columbia proposes to abandon the Heard Storage Field, the Majorsville Shallow Storage Field, and the Majorsville Deep Storage Field, including all associated facilities and base gas, located in Marshall County, West Virginia and Greene and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania. Specifically, Columbia proposes to abandon 57 injection/withdrawal wells, 14 observation wells, the Majorsville Compressor Station, and all associated pipelines and aboveground appurtenances.
On June 30, 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 Exempt Wholesale Generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Public Utility Holding Company filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Qualifying Facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On December 16, 2025, PacifiCorp filed an application for an exemption from licensing for the existing 6.7-megawatt Ashton Hydroelectric Project No. 2381. The project is located on the Henry's Fork of the Snake River, in Fremont County, Idaho.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on June 15, 2026, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Amy Chang by telephone at (202) 502-6154 or by email at
In a filing made on September 4, 2026, the Seefeld Corporation (exemptee) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of an email from the Washington Department of Ecology documenting receipt of the exemptee's Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification application, in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to Section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If the Washington Department of Ecology fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On March 21, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission or FERC) issued an order, pursuant to section 209(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
In the Establishing Order, the Commission requested that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) nominate state commission representatives to serve on the Collaborative, with two state commission representatives originating from each NARUC region.
More information about the Collaborative is available here:
For questions, please contact: Robert Thormeyer, 202-502-8694,
On June 17, 2026, Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP26-545-000 requesting authorization pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Flat Lake Access Pipeline Project (Project) and would export up to 80 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of sour natural gas from Steel Reef's existing compressor station near Fortuna, North Dakota to the Flat Lake Gas Plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, and import approximately 6 MMcf/d of fuel gas to supply the compressor station.
On June 30, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application 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.
The Project will consist of a 0.65-mile-long, 10-inch-diameter main export line designed to transport up to 80 MMcf/d for the gathering and export of sour natural gas from North Dakota to the Flat Lake Gas Plant in Canada, as well as a parallel 0.65-mile-long, 6-inch-diameter fuel return line designed to transport approximately 6 MMcf/d of fuel gas imported from the Flat Lake Gas Plant. The border crossing facilities will be located entirely within North Dakota and terminate at the international boundary with Canada.
On July 22, 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
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 (
As separately announced in the Notices of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on June 11, 2026 and August 7, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene its annual Commissioner-led Reliability Technical Conference, in the above-referenced proceeding, on Wednesday, October 21, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:40 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, to discuss policy issues related to the reliability and security of the Bulk-Power System. The conference will be held in-person at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 in the Kevin J. McIntyre Commission Meeting Room.
The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is no fee for attendance. An additional supplemental notice will be issued prior to the conference with further details regarding the agenda. Information on this technical conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this conference, please contact Lodie White at
On August 11, 2026, The Dam, LLC filed an application to surrender its exemption from licensing for the Chapman Dam Project No. 6898. The project is located on the North Fork Shenandoah River in Shenandoah County, Virginia. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
The exemptee is proposing to surrender its exemption from licensing. The project is currently inoperable. The project has been disconnected from the power grid, and all project features would remain in place. A Notice of Application for Surrender of Exemption Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests was issued on August 19, 2025. No comments were filed pursuant to the notice.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
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
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Rebecca Martin at (202)-502-6012 or
On September 30, 2025, the Village of Saranac Lake filed an application to relicense the 200-kilowatt Lake Flower Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 8369. The project is located on the Saranac River in Franklin and Essex Counties, New York.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on June 26, 2026, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Arash Barsari by telephone at (202) 502-6207 or by email at
Take notice that the Commission received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. 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
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. Each filing may be viewed
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for information.
EPA updates test methods and waste sampling guidance as part of routine updates according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). To aid in the implementation of these directives, the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests information on SW-846 method experiences, needs, and requirements. ORCR is specifically interested in information on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Method 1311, including method challenges, and alternatives. Information is welcome from stakeholders involved in requesting, performing, and evaluating the results from SW-846 methods including, but not limited to, industry stakeholders, researchers, academia, state, Tribal, and local governments. This includes U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, other federal agencies, community groups, non-governmental organizations, the public, and international organizations. The EPA will use the information received in response to this request for information (RFI) to inform what action, if any, it may take.
Comments and information must be received on or before November 13, 2026 to allow for consideration in any short-term updates to the methods. The EPA may consider comments received after the due date to the extent practicable.
EPA invites submission of the requested information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2026-7360, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Troy Strock, Waste Identification, Notice, and Generators Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 5304T, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0504; email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2026-7360, at
Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials. No confidential and/or business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information should be submitted in response to this RFI.
The work supports the Agency's ability to: foster new technologies for managing waste, recovering resources and reducing environmental impact such as is covered under the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) section 8001; and conduct comprehensive studies on specific solid and hazardous waste streams as covered under RCRA section 8002. The work will be used to consider updates to EPA's Tests Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), which provides the official analytical methods for characterizing hazardous wastes under RCRA. RCRA section 2002 authorizes updates to test methods and waste sampling guidance.
The SW-846 Compendium is the official collection of test methods for compliance with RCRA and includes more than 220 sampling and analytical methods for project planning, sample collection and quality control. SW-846 methods are used for RCRA hazardous waste identification and treatment and for contaminated site assessment and cleanup under RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), emergency response work, the Underground Storage Tanks program, and the Brownfields program.
SW-846 methods updates are necessary to keep up with scientific advances, new equipment, changing technology, and new analytical needs to remain useful. Analytical methods updates can also reduce costs for identification and/or treatment of hazardous waste or for cleanup of contaminated sites.
A few SW-846 methods are incorporated by reference in federal RCRA regulations—they are either required for RCRA compliance testing, or the results are definitive for determining the regulatory status of a waste (
The Agency uses the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to estimate the potential for wastes to leach hazardous constituents to groundwater, where they may be transported to a drinking water well, which may in turn result in human exposure to the toxic constituent. TCLP is designed to reflect conditions likely to occur in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill, as the Agency identified industrial waste co-disposal in an MSW landfill as plausible management for unregulated waste.
In 1980, prior to development of the TCLP, the Agency adopted the Extraction Procedure (EP) to identify wastes likely to leach hazardous concentrations of particular toxic constituents into the groundwater under conditions of improper management (45 FR 33110 May 19, 1980). In 1986, the Agency proposed a modified leaching procedure, the TCLP, to replace the EP (51 FR 21648, June 13, 1986). The Agency promulgated the final rule on the application of the TCLP in 1990 (55 FR 11827, March 29, 1990).
In 1991 and 1999, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the Agency's leaching evaluation methodology and expressed concern about the widespread non-regulatory use of TCLP, including for estimating leaching under conditions that are substantially different from the conditions built into TCLP (such as contaminated sites). The SAB recommended that EPA develop a new, flexible methodology that can more accurately estimate leaching under a broader range of conditions.
In 1998, the EPA proposed (63 FR 25430 May 8, 1998) that some of the required uses of SW-846 methods were not necessary. In addition, members of the regulated community requested the opportunity to use other reliable methods to comply with RCRA. The Methods Innovation Rule (70 FR 34538 June 14, 2005) removed most required uses of SW-846 methods and allowed more flexibility in test method selection. The rule allowed laboratories to use non-SW-846 methods, provided the facility or laboratory demonstrates the data are of appropriate quality to limit the risk of making decision errors and ensure that waste management decisions are protective of human health and the environment. All SW-846 methods were covered by this rule except for methods that involve determination of method-defined parameters (MDPs), such as TCLP, which must be followed for regulatory compliance.
In 2016, EPA further streamlined the approval process for non-regulatory methods in SW-846 (81 FR 66276, September 27, 2016).
To address the SAB concerns, EPA initiated a program to identify and validate a next generation of leach testing approaches. The Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) analytical methods (SW-846 Methods 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316) were designed to consider the impact on leaching of waste forms and environmental conditions that are known to affect leaching, and which vary in value for different wastes and disposal conditions. The published LEAF methods have only been validated for inorganic chemicals. EPA is currently conducting research and development to adapt the leaching methods to address organic constituents as well.
LEAF is intended for situations where an assessment tailored to site conditions is needed where the conditions differ from the disposal scenario addressed by TCLP, and TCLP is
EPA has identified some key information categories on which stakeholder insights would be most helpful:
Following each information category, EPA has included a list of suggested questions as a helpful guide for consideration in preparing comments. EPA provides these questions simply to guide the type of comments the Agency would find useful to help inform development, updates, and prioritization of methods and guidance. EPA also requests that commenters include, wherever possible, supporting data or other qualitative information such as information about the barriers and challenges to performing the methods, successful guidance and use of methods, and details on measurable benefits for industry, government, or consumers.
The suggested questions below provide an opportunity for all commenters to provide input on sampling guidance challenges and best practices. EPA is particularly interested in collecting information on sampling and testing of heterogeneous wastes, such as discarded solar panels, that may be particularly challenging for making hazardous waste determinations. EPA is also interested in any existing studies or reports with background information on updated waste sampling procedures. Suggested questions to consider for comment submission include:
• What challenges or barriers does your organization face regarding waste sampling?
• Which types of wastes or waste properties present the biggest challenges related to sampling, and why?
• Does your organization currently manage heterogeneous wastes such as debris, multi-component electronic devices, solar panels or other wastes that present a particular challenge with regard to sampling for the purpose of compliance with RCRA Subtitle C regulations? If so, how does your organization currently address these types of wastes?
• What information resources, tools or guidance would help your organization address the challenges or barriers you've identified related to waste sampling?
• Is EPA's existing guidance on waste analysis plans and waste sampling
• What references, other than those published by EPA, does your organization rely on for waste sampling (
The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method 1311, is used for toxicity characteristic hazardous waste determinations under the characteristic hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR 261.24 and for compliance with numeric standards for nonwastewaters under the LDR regulations at 40 CFR 268.48. TCLP is designed to simulate leaching under mildly acidic conditions that might exist in an early stage municipal solid waste landfill.
Several technical and practical issues have been raised by the regulated community and others regarding the applicability of the TCLP for identifying hazardous waste. A number of comments were submitted to the Agency in response to the June 13, 1986 proposal to replace the EP with the TCLP. The Agency responded to the comments in the final rule but also decided to further evaluate modifications to the TCLP. The Agency stated that further improvements in the TCLP will be proposed as they are developed. Additional concerns have been raised by commenters during later rulemakings (
• TCLP can underestimate leaching of contaminants from some highly alkaline wastes or exposure to alkaline environments.
• TCLP can underestimate leaching of contaminants from oily wastes and some paint wastes.
• TCLP may not accurately mimic conditions commonly found in non-hazardous industrial waste landfills.
• TCLP may underestimate the chelation-facilitated mobility of some waste constituents.
• TCLP does not account for the oxidation/reduction reactions occurring in landfills.
• TCLP may not accurately predict long-term mobility of organic contaminants in some treated wastes.
• TCLP may not be appropriate for some contaminated soils.
• TCLP does not predict releases to non-groundwater pathways.
EPA is requesting information from the public on the current state of TCLP use and of compliance with TCLP numerical standards. Suggested questions to consider for comment submission include:
• What challenges or barriers does your organization face when using Method 1311 for RCRA regulatory compliance testing?
• Which types of wastes or waste properties present the biggest challenges for TCLP testing, and why?
• Are there specific process steps in Method 1311 that are particularly challenging or ambiguous?
• What kinds of benefits or costs would your organization experience if EPA updated the method or issued interpretive guidance? For example, the following issues have been raised by previous method users:
○ Method 1311 provides a maximum particle size, but not a minimum particle size.
○ Method 1311 allows vacuum filtration to be used for liquid-solid separations, but the applicability is limited.
• What additional information resources or tools would be most helpful for your organization to overcome challenges related to TCLP testing?
• Has your organization developed any additional training materials or handbooks to assist in performing Method 1311?
The Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) analytical methods
The LEAF methods are intended for situations where an assessment tailored to site conditions is needed where the conditions differ from the disposal scenario addressed by TCLP, and TCLP is
EPA is considering providing a regulatory alternative to TCLP testing for wastes to evaluate leaching of chemicals from wastes disposed in lined landfills other than municipal solid waste landfills.
EPA is requesting information from the public on whether alternative leaching methods would be useful for evaluation of waste leaching under alternative conditions, such as those that exist in landfills other than municipal solid waste landfills regulated under RCRA subtitle D at 40 CFR part 258. Suggested questions to consider for comment submission include:
For Hazardous Waste Generators or Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities:
• What alternative leaching tests, if any, does your organization currently use to aid in hazardous waste identification and/or LDR compliance?
• What are the barriers and sources of demand for using LEAF for your organization?
○ Would your organization potentially benefit from having more flexibility to make site-specific evaluations of aqueous leaching from waste for disposal in a landfill other than a municipal solid waste landfill?
○ Does your organization currently produce or manage a toxicity characteristic hazardous waste stream that potentially would not exceed leaching-based RCRA regulatory thresholds under management conditions at a non-MSW landfill?
• What kinds of benefits or costs would your organization experience if EPA made regulatory updates consistent with this approach for waste disposal?
• What impacts would the cost of LEAF testing, relative to TCLP, have on your organization's likelihood of using this regulatory alternative compared to your current waste management practices?
For RCRA Subtitle C authorized States:
• What specific wastes or management situations does your organization encounter that would benefit most from using the LEAF approach?
• What challenges or barriers would your organization have to overcome to adopt RCRA regulatory updates to provide flexibility in complying with RCRA regulatory thresholds currently based on TCLP?
• How much additional cost would your organization incur to implement this regulatory alternative compared to your current practices, and could these additional costs be offset with an additional fee?
• What additional technical support or other resources would your organization need to support this regulatory flexibility?
• Does your organization have any suggestions for how EPA could facilitate state adoption of a more flexible regulatory approach for waste testing such as using the LEAF methods to ensure disposal of wastes will be protective of human health and the environment?
• Does your organization have any suggestions for how to define the range of conditions across which wastes would need to be tested to ensure disposal of wastes will be protective of human health and the environment?
The Methods Innovation Rule (70 FR 34538, June 14, 2005) removed certain required uses of SW-846 methods, and to allow more flexibility in test method selection. The rule allowed laboratories to modify SW-846 methods, provided the modified method meets the defined quality assurance parameters established in the method or defined for the project; and to use non-SW-846 methods, provided the method falls within EPA's parameter to protect human health and the environment. All SW-846 methods were covered by this rule except for methods that involve determination of method-defined parameters (MDPs), such as TCLP, which must be followed to the letter for regulatory compliance.
In 2016, EPA further streamlined the approval process for non-regulatory methods in SW-846 (81 FR 66276, September 27, 2016). Some MDP were updated in the Modernizing Ignitable Liquids Determination Rule (85 FR 40594, July 7, 2020).
EPA is requesting information from the public on MDPs and SW-846 methods including how they are used, testing challenges, and needs for updates and new methods. Suggested questions to consider for comment submission include:
For Hazardous Waste Generators/Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities:
• Which SW-846 methods are the most useful for your organization?
• Which SW-846 methods are most in need of revision due to equipment obsolescence, capacity constraints, quality limitations, or other challenges?
• What are the highest priority gaps in SW-846 methods for identifying hazardous waste characteristics?
• What are the highest priority gaps in SW-846 methods for demonstrating compliance with LDR requirements?
• Which aspects of waste management present the biggest hazardous waste identification challenges for your organization,
• What additional challenges does your organization have with using current SW-846 methods? For example, what unmet methods-related needs, if any, does your organization have for RCRA regulatory compliance testing?
For RCRA-authorized States:
• What are the biggest uncertainties related to methods that your organization has for assuring compliance with hazardous waste characteristic regulations or compliance with numeric standards for treated hazardous wastes?
• What challenges does your organization have with using current SW-846 methods?
• What unmet methods-related needs does your organization have related to RCRA regulatory compliance?
• What opportunities and challenges does your organization face with adopting updated methods?
This RFI is issued solely for information, research and planning purposes and does not constitute a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a Request
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 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 13, 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.
Efforts by federal, state, and local government, along with the significant efforts of wireline and wireless service providers, have resulted in the nearly ubiquitous deployment of this life-saving service.
Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act requires the Commission to “consider adopting rules to ensure that the dispatchable location is conveyed with a 9-1-1 call, regardless of the technological platform used and including with calls from multi-line telephone system.” RAY BAUM'S Act also states that, “[i]n conducting the proceeding . . . the Commission may consider information and conclusions from other Commission proceedings regarding the accuracy of the dispatchable location for a 9-1-1 call . . . .” RAY BAUM'S Act defines a “9-1-1 call” as a voice call that is placed, or a message that is sent by other means of communication, to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the purpose of requesting emergency services.
As part of implementing Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act, on August 1, 2019, the Commission adopted a
The Commission's
The information collection requirements associated with these rules will ensure that Fixed Telephony and MLTS providers have the means to provide 91l callers' locations to PSAPs, thus reducing response times for emergency services.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 14, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
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.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the 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 29, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal
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 October 14, 2026.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “2026 Ebola Entry Screening, Monitoring, & Traveler Feedback” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 2, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
2026 Ebola Entry Screening, Monitoring, & Traveler Feedback (OMB Control No. 0920-1469, Exp. 10/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Global Migration Health (DGMH) requests approval for a Revision of an existing information collection (OMB Control No. 0920-1469). Section 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 264) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. Under its delegated authority, DGMH works to fulfill this responsibility through a variety of activities, including the operation of Port Health Stations at ports of entry and administration of foreign quarantine regulations; 42 Code of Federal Regulation part 71, specifically 42 CFR 71.20—Public health prevention measures to detect communicable disease.
This information collection concerns CDC's statutory and regulatory authority related to conducting public health screening of travelers upon arrival to the United States and assessing individual travelers for public health risk following a report of illness from a conveyance and CDC's responsibility to ensure the successful implementation of traveler monitoring to prevent the transmission or spread of communicable diseases into the United States. On May 18, 2026, CDC published an Order under the Public Health Service Act Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists. The Order was amended on May 22, 2026. An Order continuing the suspension of the right to introduce specified foreign nationals into the United States was issued on June 21, 2026, July 13, 2026, and most recently on August 12, 2026. The order issued on August 12 will be in effect for 30 days. Exceptions are included for U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, certain U.S. government personnel and military, case-by-case humanitarian or law enforcement exceptions, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-approved entry processes with CDC-documented mitigation protocols.
CDC relies on its federal partners in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assist in the screening process because of their presence at the ports of entry. DHS will refer travelers that have been to Ebola outbreak areas to another location at the airport where CDC will
On May 17, 2026, an outbreak of Ebola disease caused by Bundibugyo virus was detected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Uganda. On May 20, 2026, the DHS published Arrival Restrictions Applicable to Flights Carrying Persons Who Have Recently Traveled From or Were Otherwise Present Within the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, or South Sudan. Airlines are instructed to redirect flights carrying persons who have recently traveled from or were otherwise present within DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan in the previous 21 days to Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD). U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a memo on May 22, 2026, modifying the list of designated airports to include Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) and George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). On May 26, 2026, CBP further expanded the list of airports to include John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). CDC is conducting public health entry screening at designated U.S. airports of travelers coming from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. The purpose of public health entry screening is to detect ill travelers or travelers arriving from regions affected by the outbreak who are at risk of becoming ill with Ebola to facilitate post-arrival management.
CDC will utilize information collected during public health entry screening to determine which travelers should be monitored for Ebola symptoms in accordance with CDC's interim recommendations for post-arrival public health management of travelers from the outbreak area. CDC is currently sharing contact information and initial public health assessment of exposure risk for travelers who have been in areas affected by the outbreak during the 21 days before their arrival in the United States with state and local health departments through existing data-sharing infrastructure. State and local health departments utilize the contact information provided by CDC to prioritize and identify the level of follow-up needed based on the level of risk of exposure to Ebola and determine if additional risk assessment and/or targeted public health measures are necessary. This coordination is necessary to facilitate post-arrival public health management as specified in CDC interim guidance.
At the end of the 21-day monitoring period, CDC will send a final survey to travelers intended to evaluate the impact of rerouting and public health entry screening on travelers. The results of this final survey will allow CDC to identify the most efficient channels for reaching travelers and refine public health messaging for travelers coming from the outbreak area.
An Emergency package was approved for collection of data on 5/20/2026. CDC requests OMB approval for the continued collection of data under OMB Control No. 0920-1469—2026 Ebola Entry Screening, Monitoring, & Traveler Feedback. The total estimated annual burden requested is 25,171 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Application Form and Related Forms for the Operation of the National Death Index (NDI)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on June 10, 2026 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received no comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Application Form and Related Forms for the Operation of the National Death Index (NDI) (OMB Control No. 0920-0215)—Reinstatement—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C.), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States. The National Death Index (NDI) is a database containing identifying death record information submitted annually to NCHS by all the jurisdiction (states and territories) vital statistics offices, beginning with deaths in 1979. Searches against the NDI file provide the jurisdictions with dates of death, and the death certificate numbers of deceased study subjects.
Using the NDI Plus service, researchers have the option of also receiving cause of death information for deceased subjects, thus reducing the need to request copies of death certificates from the jurisdictions. The NDI Plus option currently provides the International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes for the underlying and multiple causes of death for the years 1979-2025. Health researchers must complete administrative forms in order to apply for NDI services, and submit records of study subjects for computer matching against the NDI file. A three-year Reinstatement is submitted to continue the use of the administrative forms (the NDI Application form which is coupled with the NDI Data Use Agreement, the Supplemental NDI Data Use Agreement and the Data Destruction form), as well as the NDI Transmittal form and NDI ER Transmittal form utilized in the operation of the National Death Index (NDI) program. Also included are the two worksheets used to calculate related fees. These forms are submitted by NDI users when applying for use of the NDI and when using the service.
CDC requests OMB approval for a total estimated annual burden of 1,373 hours. This represents a small increase in burden hours due primarily to the modest increase in applications and transmittal forms. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by November 13, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
QIN-QIO contractors provide technical assistance (TA) to CMS identified nursing homes, hospitals, and outpatient clinical practices, helping strengthen quality management infrastructure and improve healthcare quality and safety for Medicare beneficiaries. They support providers and target populations by implementing evidence-based, tailored quality improvement strategies that address a range of operational and performance challenges. This survey collects data pertaining to assistance provided by the QIN-QIO contractors to these providers. This survey provides an independent assessment of these services, providing program management with information to improve services to the provider community in support of Medicare beneficiaries.
CMS evaluates the quality and effectiveness of the QIN-QIO program as authorized in Part B of Title XI of the Social Security Act. This ICR is to conduct data collection using surveys with administrators or quality improvement directors of nursing homes, hospitals, and clinicians in outpatient clinical practice settings.
2.
3.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice of requests for nominations.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) seeks nominations for individuals to serve on the Family Caregiving Advisory Council.
Nominations must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m., Eastern on October 14, 2026 to be considered for appointment.
Kari Benson, (202) 401-4634,
The Family Caregiving Advisory Council (the Advisory Council) is authorized under Section 4 of the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-119), commonly referred to as the “RAISE Family Caregivers Act.” The Advisory Council studies and prepares findings, conclusions, and makes recommendations to the Administrator of ACL/Assistant Secretary for Aging on matters pertaining to: (a) Evidence-based or promising practices and innovative models for the provision of care by family caregivers or support for family caregivers; and (b) Improving coordination across federal government programs. The Advisory Council advises and provides recommendations to the Administrator on recognizing and supporting family caregivers. The Advisory Council consists of at least three ex officio federal members: The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (or the Administrator's designee); the Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (or the Administrator's designee who has experience with both aging and disability); and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (or the Secretary's designee). Heads of other federal departments or agencies (or their designees) also may be appointed as ex officio members. In addition, the ACL Administrator will appoint a maximum of fifteen non-federal voting members, with at least one from each of the following constituencies: family caregivers; older adults who need long-term services and supports; individuals with disabilities; health care and social service providers; providers of long-term services and supports; employers; paraprofessional workers; state and local officials; accreditation bodies; veterans; and as appropriate, other experts and advocates engaged in family caregiving.
The Advisory Council reports may focus on the development, maintenance, and updating of the National Family Caregiving Strategy and other topics as applicable. Reports may include a description of the implementation of the actions recommended in the Strategy, and subsequent updates. Reports will be provided to the Secretary, Congress, and the state agencies responsible for carrying out family caregiver programs.
The Advisory Council, or its individual members, may also be engaged to author/co-author articles and other materials; engage with print and electronic media; and deliver presentations, workshops, webinars and other forms of educational opportunities designed to highlight the Administration's commitment to supporting families and family caregivers.
As needed, and where appropriate, this Advisory Council will coordinate its efforts with those of the Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren. Such coordination might include joint meetings, presentations and other activities undertaken in fulfillment of the requirements of the RAISE Act.
The Advisory Council will meet in person or virtually (via Zoom or similar platform), at least three times each year, beginning in May 2027 (estimated). Council meetings will generally be held from 12:00-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. All meetings of the Council will be open to the public, live streamed on Zoom or a similar platform, and recorded for posting on the ACL website. Advisory Council members will be expected to participate in at least one subcommittee, or working group, which will meet, as needed, between Advisory Council meetings to develop and review materials and conduct other activities related to the Advisory Council's mission and purpose.
The completion of all the activities described is dependent upon the continued availability of federal funding for the purposes of carrying out the legislation.
(1) A nomination letter not to exceed one (1) page that provides ALL of the following information:
a. The reason(s) for nominating the individual;
b. The constituency being represented (from the list above; may be more than one);
c. The nominee's particular, relevant experience and/or professional expertise or lived experience;
d. Contact information for the nominee [name, title (if applicable), address, phone, and email address]; and
e. The nominee's resume (not to exceed two (2) pages) if the nomination is based on their professional capacity or qualifications. A resume is optional otherwise.
Nominees will be selected for appointment based on their demonstrated knowledge, qualifications, and professional or personal experience related to the purpose and scope of the Advisory Council. Nominations that fail to include all the above information will not receive consideration.
(2) Members will be appointed for a period not to exceed three years. Members appointed to fill subsequent vacancies will serve for the remainder of the current term of the Advisory Council.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice of request for nominations.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) seeks nominations for individuals to serve on the Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren.
Nominations must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m., Eastern on October 14, 2026 to be considered for appointment.
Nominations, including all requested information and attachments, must be submitted electronically to:
Kari Benson, (202) 401-4634,
The Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren is authorized by the Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Act (Pub. L. 115-196) of 2018. The Advisory Council identifies, promotes, coordinates, and disseminates to the public information, resources, and the best practices available to help grandparents and other older relatives both meet the needs of the children in their care; and maintain their own physical and mental health and emotional well-being. The Advisory Council is specifically directed to consider the needs of those affected by the opioid crisis, as well as the needs of members of Native American Tribes. The Administration for Community Living has been delegated the authority to execute the requirements and responsibilities as outlined in the Act.
The Advisory Council is made up of the following (or their designees): the Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL); the Secretary of Education; the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families; and, as appropriate, the heads of other federal departments or agencies with responsibilities related to current issues affecting grandparents or other older relatives raising children.
The Advisory Council also must include at least one grandparent who is raising a grandchild, and an older relative (kinship) caregiver caring for children. ACL anticipates selecting up to ten (10) non-federal members to serve on the Advisory Council who will be reflective of grandparents and older relative/kinship caregivers and the professionals working on their behalf, with particular emphasis placed on individuals representing tribal communities, and those families impacted by the opioid crisis.
The Advisory Council, or its individual members, may be engaged to author/co-author articles and other materials; engage with print and electronic media; and deliver presentations, workshops, webinars and other forms of educational opportunities designed to highlight the Administration's commitment to supporting kin and grandparent caregivers.
As needed, and where appropriate, this Advisory Council will coordinate its efforts with those of the Family Caregiving Advisory Council. Such coordination might include joint meetings, presentations, and other activities undertaken in fulfillment of the requirements of the RAISE Act.
The Advisory Council will meet in person or virtually (via Zoom or similar platform), up to three times each year, beginning in May 2027 (estimated). Council meetings will generally be held from 12:00-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. All meetings of the Council will be open to the public, live streamed on Zoom or a similar platform, and recorded for posting on the ACL website. Advisory Council members will be expected to participate in at least one subcommittee or working group, which will meet, as needed, between Advisory Council meetings to develop and review materials and conduct other activities related to the Advisory Council's mission and purpose.
The completion of all activities described is dependent upon the continued availability of federal funding for the purposes of carrying out the legislation.
(1) A nomination letter not to exceed one (1) page that provides ALL the following information:
a. The reason(s) for nominating the individual;
b. The constituency being represented:
i. A grandparent raising a grandchild; or
ii. An older relative caregiver of children;
iii. A grandparent or older relative caregiver whose family has been impacted by opioid misuse; or
iv. A grandparent or older relative caregiver who is a member of Native American tribe; or
v. Another expert and/or advocate engaged in programs, services, and supports to kinship families and grandfamilies.
c. The nominee's particular, relevant experience and/or professional expertise;
d. Contact information for the nominee (name, title (if applicable), address, phone, and email address); and
e. The nominee's resume (not to exceed two (2) pages) if the nomination is based on their professional capacity or qualifications. A resume is optional otherwise.
Nominees will be selected for appointment based on their demonstrated knowledge, qualifications, and professional or personal experience related to the purpose and scope of the Advisory Council. Nominations that fail to include all the above information will not receive consideration.
(2) Members will be appointed for a period not to exceed three years. Members appointed to fill subsequent vacancies will serve for the remainder of the current term of the Advisory Council.
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 Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM) for Expanding Outreach and Professional Training to Engage Older Adults with Behavioral Health Conditions in Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs. The purpose is to expand national outreach, training, and resources to increase participation in community-based, evidence-based programs (EBPs) for older adults with behavioral health issues, to help the aging and disability network develop new practical skills, and to improve coordination among local aging and behavioral health service providers. The administrative supplement for FY 2026 will be for $1,084,718, bringing the total award for the FY 2024 to FY 2027 budget period to $4,345,417.
The supplement award will be issued to align with Year 3 (September 1, 2026, through August 31, 2027) of the September 1, 2024, through August 31, 2027 project period.
For further information or comments regarding this program supplement, contact Patricia Keane, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Office of Nutrition and Health Promotion Programs; telephone (202) 795-7783; email
This supplemental funding will increase LECOM's capacity to expand the reach and impact of its approved
LECOM should expand BRIDGES training and technical assistance (TA) to all ACL Chronic Disease Self-Management Education (CDSME) grantees, including those specifically focused on preventing and managing chronic disease in older adults with behavioral health conditions and stressors. They should build a tiered TA model for CDSME and other ACL grantees, scaled to organizational readiness level. This model should include individual consultation, implementation coaching, office hours, cohort models, and peer-to-peer learning opportunities. LECOM should facilitate the federal agencies contributing to the 10th anniversary of the virtual Older Adult Mental Health Awareness Day and convene grantees and the network for behavioral health continuing education and training opportunities to include speakers, partner organizations, and subject matter experts. LECOM should broaden the existing BRIDGES curriculum to specifically include CDSME grantees, and develop a CDSME grantee partnership track to onboard CDSME grantees with targeted implementation resources and communities of practice. LECOM should develop an evidence-informed Dissemination and Engagement Playbook to use across BRIDGES, CDSME, and the broader grantee portfolio, and other ACL-supported initiatives.
It would be unnecessarily time consuming and disruptive to the BRIDGES project and the beneficiaries being served for the ACL to establish a new grantee at this time when critical services are presently being provided in an efficient manner.
LECOM is ideally and uniquely positioned to make the best use of the increased funding quickly and efficiently to effectively deliver what is needed to meet the needs of CDSME grantees and the broader aging and disability network. LECOM has established itself nationally as a recognized leader and expert in
Additionally, the grantee has worked diligently to develop relationships with stakeholders through outreach and conference presentations, and to ensure that an inclusive range of partners are in place, engaged in the work, and committed to the success of CDSME.
LECOM is successfully meeting all programmatic goals under the current
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 14, 2026.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Kelly Covington, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-402-5661,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 1003 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393), FDA is authorized to conduct research and public information programs about regulated products and responsibilities of the Agency. Executive Order 12862, entitled “Setting Customer Service Standard,” directs Federal Agencies that “provide significant services directly to the public” to “survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.” FDA is seeking to extend OMB approval to conduct customer service satisfaction surveys to implement Executive Order 12862. Participation in the surveys is voluntary. This request covers customer/partner (including State and local governments) service satisfaction surveys of regulated entities, such as food processors; cosmetic, drug, biologic, and medical device manufacturers; animal drugs, animal food and feed; tobacco products; and consumers and health professionals.
FDA will use the information from these surveys to identify strengths and weaknesses in service to customers/partners and to make improvements. The surveys will measure timeliness, appropriateness, clarity, and accuracy of information, courtesy, and problem resolution in the context of individual programs.
FDA estimates conducting approximately 20 customer/partner service satisfaction surveys per year, each requiring an average of 25 minutes for review and completion. We estimate respondents to these surveys to be between 100 and 20,000 customers/partners. Some of these surveys will be repeats of earlier surveys for purposes of monitoring customer/partner service and developing long-term data. Respondents to this collection of information cover a broad range of stakeholders who have experience with certain products regulated by or services provided by FDA.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on a review of the information collection since our last request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee (HITAC), originally scheduled for September 24, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET, which was published in the
The meeting will be held on October 8, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET. The meeting is open to the public and will be held virtually. For web conference instructions and the most up-to-date meeting information, please visit the HITAC calendar at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Office of Science Policy (OSP), in the Office of the Director (OD), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, Email your comment or request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 777.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Request for information.
As the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is committed to ensuring that gold-standard science is conducted under gold-standard biosafety conditions. To achieve this goal, NIH is proposing a new policy that modernizes and strengthens biosafety practices to ensure that oversight keeps pace with evolving risks. NIH is requesting public input on a new, comprehensive biosafety policy proposal that, when finalized, will replace the current NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (
To ensure consideration, comments must be submitted on or before October 19, 2026.
Comments must be submitted electronically to:
Comments are voluntary and may be submitted anonymously. You may also voluntarily include your name and contact information with your response. Other than your name and contact information, please do not include in the response any personally identifiable information or any information that you do not wish to make public. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your response. After the NIH Office of Science Policy (OSP) has finished reviewing the responses, the responses may be posted to the OSP website without redaction.
Cari Young, Sc.M., Director of the Biosafety, Biosecurity, and Emerging Biotechnology Policy Division, Office of Science Policy, (301) 496-9838 or
Nearly 50 years ago, NIH introduced the foundational Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (
To inform the initial policy proposal, NIH undertook an intensive community outreach and engagement effort (
The feedback received to date has informed a new policy proposal that expands the scope of the NIH Guidelines to all biohazards while removing red tape for low-risk research. As part of this modernization, NIH also seeks to strengthen the role of Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) and reinforce consistency with Institutional Review Boards and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, which serve as three foundational pillars of institutional oversight of biomedical research.
Through this draft policy, NIH aims to augment public safety, transparency, and accountability in its stewardship of the biomedical research enterprise. NIH recognizes that resources and guidance will be required to achieve successful implementation of a modernized biosafety policy. Thus, NIH intends to provide additional supplemental materials for the community through implementation resources. These materials will include information about IBC functions, as well as content drawn from existing information, such as biosafety considerations for research with gene drive modified organisms (
As the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, NIH is committed to ensuring that gold-standard science is conducted under gold-standard biosafety conditions. The purpose of the NIH Biosafety Policy for Research Involving Biohazards (the Policy) is to achieve this goal by setting forth requirements for federal and local institutional oversight of biomedical research involving biohazards, and to help ensure the safe, responsible, and secure conduct of such research.
The NIH Biosafety Policy covers all biomedical research, in laboratory settings, involving biohazards.
For the purpose of the scope of this Policy, research involving biohazards is defined as research involving known or potential risk to human health and any of the following:
1. Wild-type biological agents (
2. Cells, viruses, or organisms, other than plants, that have been genetically modified;
3. Toxins, prions, and other self-aggregating proteins; or
4. Cells or organisms, other than plants, containing 1, 2, or 3 above.
This Policy applies to research supported in whole or in part by NIH, regardless of NIH funding level or funding mechanism, including the NIH Intramural Research Program. This Policy is applicable to all competing award applications, competitive revisions, proposals for contracts, and other funding agreements (
Based on risk, different categories of research will require different levels of oversight as described in Section IV.
Any research subject to this Policy that is also under the regulation or purview of another federal agency may proceed under the oversight of the other federal agency once approvals or other applicable clearances have been obtained.
All institutions conducting NIH-supported research will be required to comply with this Policy, which will be included in the applicable terms and conditions of the award or agreement and included in applicable NIH intramural policies and procedures. As a term and condition for NIH funding, institutions shall ensure that any research conducted at or sponsored by the institution, irrespective of the source of funding, shall comply with this Policy, as specified in applicable terms and conditions of the award or agreement.
Failure to comply may provide a basis for enforcement actions, including, but not limited to, additional special terms and conditions, or termination, consistent with applicable grant regulations; applicable NIH policies and procedures, including NIH intramural policies and procedures; the Federal Acquisition Regulations; and/or other authorities, as appropriate. Enforcement actions may affect future funding decisions for the recipient institution, as authorized in the NIH Grants Policy Statement (GPS). In cases where NIH proposes to suspend, limit, or terminate financial assistance because of noncompliance with the Policy, applicable HHS and Public Health Service procedures shall govern.
This Policy outlines fundamental biosafety principles and practices that serve as a foundation for biomedical research. The Policy may serve globally as a model framework for biosafety oversight, and entities not otherwise subject are encouraged to follow the Policy principles and implement commensurate oversight procedures to enable safe, responsible, and secure research regardless of funding source.
The following terms, which are used throughout the NIH Biosafety Policy, are defined as follows:
• The introduction into cells, organisms, or viruses of nucleic acid molecules that meet any of the following criteria:
○ Possess biological properties that enable introduction of stable alterations (
○ Have the potential for one or more cycles of replication in a cell; or
○ Can be transcribed or translated; or
• The introduction into cells, organisms, or viruses of stable alterations into the genome by passaging, reassortment, chemical or radiological means.
An institution conducting or sponsoring research subject to the NIH Biosafety Policy is responsible for ensuring that such research is conducted in full compliance with the Policy as a term and condition of NIH funding. No research subject to this Policy may be conducted until the institution conducting the research has provided a written Biosafety Assurance through the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) (
• Lines of authority and responsibility for administering the program and ensuring compliance with this Policy; to include contact information for relevant staff such as the IBC Contact, IBC Chair, and Biological Safety Officer (BSO) if applicable.
• To the maximum extent possible, weblinks to publicly-posted institutional biosafety procedures(including but not limited to documentation detailing the IBC roles,
• Other pertinent information requested by NIH.
The institution must maintain all IBC records in accordance with Section 8.4.2 of the NIH GPS, which requires recipients of awards to maintain appropriate documentation in accordance with record retention requirements in 2 CFR 200.334, which states “the recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report.” In addition, IBC meeting minutes and incident reports must be publicly posted for a minimum of five years. Records may need to be retained for longer durations in accordance with other requirements of the NIH GPS as applicable. When incident reports or meeting minutes contain records related to awards, they must be maintained for at least as long as stated in this requirement and must be made available to the public during this time if requested.
Incident reports may contain records related to multiple protocols which may be in different stages of the grant cycle.
The institution is responsible for ensuring appropriate training regarding laboratory safety and implementation for the IBC Chair and members, the BSO and other containment experts (when applicable), Principal Investigators (PI), and laboratory staff.
The institution may be required to establish and maintain an occupational health and safety program (OHSP) based on other regulations and policies. If an OHSP is required under those regulations and policies, or if it is needed based on research conducted, it should be maintained as part of the overall biosafety program. The role of the OHSP to support biosafety will depend on the facility, research activities, and biohazards involved.
The institution shall establish an IBC to meet the criteria outlined in this Policy. Additional responsibilities may be added, as needed by the institution, whose responsibilities need not be restricted to research within the scope of the Policy. The IBC must meet the following minimum requirements.
The IBC must have at least five members who have appropriate expertise, experience, and the capability to assess research involving biohazards and identify any potential risk to institutional personnel, public health, or the environment, and to determine the appropriate biosafety, and biosecurity measures, when appropriate, to mitigate those risks. The IBC should include individuals with expertise in biological safety and physical containment, and include, or have available on an
The following individuals must be appointed as voting members:
• A BSO, when the institution conducts research at BSL-3, BSL-4 or research involving GDMOs.
• At least one member with expertise in animal containment principles, when the institution conducts research, subject to the Policy, in animals that are of a size or have growth requirements that preclude housing in primary containment isolators, or an equivalent means of primary containment, including but not limited to agricultural animals and other animal species.
• At least one member with adequate expertise in ecological or environmental risk assessment, when reviewing and approving research involving GDMOs.
• At least two members who are not affiliated with the institution, other than their membership on the IBC, to represent the interest of the surrounding community with respect to health and protection of the environment.
The institution should appoint other individuals to the IBC, as needed for the types of research conducted at the institution, or use
The IBC, or its delegate as applicable, is responsible for:
• Reviewing research for compliance with the Policy as specified in Section IV “Categories of Oversight for Research Based on Risk” and approving, as warranted, research that meets the requirements of the Policy. This review shall include: (1) independent risk assessment (see Section V “Risk Assessment and Mitigation for Research Involving Biohazards”) of the biocontainment levels required for the proposed research; (2) assessment of the facilities, procedures, practices, training, and expertise of personnel involved in the research; (3) in cases of research involving human research participants, the assessment should focus on biosafety issues (
○ No member of the IBC may be involved in the review or approval of a project in which they are or expect to be engaged, or in which they have a direct financial or any other conflict of interest, except to provide information requested by the IBC to facilitate their review. Such members can be counted for purposes of establishing a voting quorum for the meeting even if they recuse themselves from the final determination related to the project.
○ When possible and consistent with protection of privacy, proprietary interests, and national security concerns, the institution is encouraged to be maximally transparent and open its IBC meetings to the public.
• Taking IBC meeting minutes and approving them no later than their next convened meeting. The IBC must post the approved minutes on a public-facing web page on the website of the institution, using the required meeting minutes template. Minutes should be posted immediately after approval and once all appropriate and allowable redactions have been made.
• Notifying the PI when the research is approved, including the required biocontainment level, any biosafety requirements, or any other conditions specified as part of the approval. Approval should be granted for a period not to exceed three years, at which time a
• Lowering containment levels for certain experiments conducted at BSL-2, as specified in Section IV “Categories of Oversight for Research Based on Risk.”
• Petitioning NIH for determination of the minimum biocontainment level for emerging, novel, or zoonotic biological agents for which the RG
• Petitioning NIH to determine the appropriate biocontainment level for research involving emerging, novel, or zoonotic biological agents, or to lower the minimum containment for research involving RG3 and RG4 agents that have not previously been approved by NIH. Initial requests should be submitted to NIH by the IBC Chair or BSO and include a full description of:
○ The agent and specific modifications to the agent (
○ The biological system(s) and experimental manipulations that will be employed, such as:
All biological reagents (
Types of experiments to be performed (
○ The IBC's risk assessment of the proposed research activities and the proposed BSLs at which each of these operations will occur, along with any special practices or procedures;
○ Supporting documentation such as published or investigator-generated data demonstrating the attenuation or loss of function of the agent that the IBC reviewed as part of its risk assessment; and
○ Other pertinent information.
The IBC may not approve the lowering of biocontainment for such research until authorized by NIH and any other applicable Federal, State or local entities.
• Periodically reviewing approved research conducted at the institution, to ensure compliance with the conditions established in the IBC approval and with the Policy. This responsibility may be delegated to the BSO or other staff, as appropriate.
• Adopting plans which include emergency response for handling accidental spills, personnel contamination, post-exposure response, loss of containment, or release of biohazards, waste disposal, or other incidents involving research covered under the Policy.
• Reviewing incidents that occur during the conduct of research subject to the Policy, to ensure the appropriate response occurred, and to determine if additional biosafety measures are warranted to mitigate the risk of future similar incidents.
• Reporting certain incidents to NIH that pose a significant risk to human health, using the required incident reporting template. Such incidents require immediate notification to NIH (within 24 hours or as soon as the institution becomes aware of the incident), followed by a full report once all information is gathered (no later than 30 days). This includes incidents that involve:
○ A confirmed or potential laboratory-acquired infection (LAI);
○ Any loss of containment/release that has the potential for community risk;
○ Any incident at BSL-3/ABSL-3 or BSL-4/ABSL-4, including:
Potential exposures involving a personal injury, and/or when medical treatment is sought after the incident to address the possibility of a LAI;
Potential releases involving facility and/or equipment failures, even when redundant systems were functioning properly, to address the possibility of risk to personnel and the community and prevent future occurrences;
Biological agent inventory and security issues that may have public health consequences.
○ Any incidents involving exposures at BSL-2/ABSL-2 that require agent-specific treatment beyond basic first aid; and
○ Any compliance violations at any BSL/ABSL, such as failure to obtain or maintain IBC approval, or failure to obtain NIH approval for lowering biocontainment for research, when required.
If treatment is provided to an exposed individual due to the potential presence of adventitious agents (
• Reviewing certain lower-risk incidents described below that do not require reporting to NIH. Such incidents must be reported to and addressed by the IBC. The IBC should determine whether the appropriate response occurred, and if additional biosafety measures are warranted to mitigate the risk of future similar incidents. Such incidents include:
○ Any incident involving research subject to the policy with an animal that is housed at BSL-1/ABSL-1 or BSL-2/ABSL-2 (
○ Any incident at BSL-1/ABSL-1 or BSL-2/ABSL-2 that does not involve agent-specific medical treatment when first aid is administered.
Minor spills of low-risk agents, that do not involve a breach of containment and that were properly cleaned and decontaminated, generally do not need to be reported.
• Posting all incident reports on a public-facing web page on the website of the institution, using the required incident reporting template. Final incident reports should be posted within 30 days of NIH's final response (when reportable to NIH) or IBC/institutional review and finalization (when not reportable to NIH) and once all appropriate and allowable redactions have been made. For incidents reportable to NIH, NIH's final response must be posted along with the final incident report.
• Performing other functions as may be delegated to the IBC by the institution.
A BSO must be appointed when the institution conducts research subject to the Policy i) at BSL-3 or 4, or ii) involving GDMOs.
The BSO's duties include but are not limited to:
• Conducting periodic inspections to ensure that laboratory biocontainment facilities and equipment are functioning properly, biosafety standards are rigorously followed, and IBC approval conditions for the conduct of research are being followed.
• Reporting to the IBC and the institution any significant problems, violations of the Policy, or any significant research-related incidents of which the BSO becomes aware.
• Responding to and investigating research-related incidents occurring during the conduct of research subject to the Policy.
• Providing technical advice to research personnel and the IBC.
If an institution does not designate a BSO, the institution must assign another official to take on these responsibilities.
The responsibilities of the PI include:
• Ensuring no research within the scope of this Policy is conducted until approved by the IBC, or IBC delegate, and has met all other requirements of the Policy.
• Reporting any incidents occurring during the conduct of research subject to the Policy (See incident reporting requirements in Section III-B for further details).
• Ensuring all laboratory personnel under their supervision understand the
• Adhering to all IBC-approved plans including emergency response for handling accidental spills, personnel contamination, post-exposure response, loss of containment or release of biohazards, waste disposal, or other incidents involving research covered under the Policy.
• Making an initial risk assessment to determine a risk mitigation strategy, including levels of physical containment and other biosafety practices as appropriate for the safe conduct of the proposed research.
• Selecting appropriate biocontainment facilities and equipment, and biosafety practices and procedures for the safe conduct of proposed research.
• Submitting the initial research protocol and any subsequent changes that may alter the biorisk assessment of the research to be conducted, to the IBC and NIH (as appropriate), for review and approval.
• Making available to all laboratory personnel the protocols that describe all biohazards and the biosafety precautions to be taken.
• Coordinating and/or providing appropriate training on the Policy and biosafety requirements applicable to the research being conducted for all research personnel under their supervision.
• Informing the laboratory staff of the reasons and provisions for any occupational health or exposure response procedures, advised or required.
• Supervising the performance of laboratory staff to ensure that the required safety practices and techniques are employed and correcting any errors.
• Ensuring the integrity, maintenance, and correct functioning of facilities, physical containment equipment, and personal protective equipment.
Institutions are further authorized and encouraged to submit voluntary, confidential reports regarding near-misses, secondary failures, or procedural issues to the National Biosafety Data and Safety Analysis Center (NBDSAC). The NIH shall not utilize the voluntarily submitted data for enforcement or action on funding, provided the incident did not result in an environmental release or a LAI. All data maintained within the NBDSAC repository must be de-identified to protect individual and institutional privacy, but institutions have flexibility in what scientific information they choose to share.
NIH is responsible for:
• Promulgating requirements and guidance necessary to implement the NIH Biosafety Policy.
• Determining the appropriate containment level for emerging, novel, or zoonotic biological agents for which the RG classification or containment level is not available in the BMBL.
• Determining the appropriate containment level for research involving wild type or genetically modified RG3 or RG4 biological agents (
• Publishing approved determinations of appropriate lower containment for research involving wild type or genetically modified RG3 or RG4 biological agents.
• Reviewing requests for lowering containment levels in a timely manner and revising the risk classification of biological agents in conjunction with other Federal agencies as applicable.
• Interpreting this Policy for cases in which the Policy does not specifically assign containment levels.
• Requesting and negotiating, approving or disapproving, and as necessary, restricting or withdrawing approval of Assurances.
• Reviewing and responding in a timely manner to reports of incidents subject to the Policy, that require reporting to NIH.
• Verifying the institutional response to incidents subject to the Policy is appropriate, and when applicable, indicating when additional action is required by the institution.
• Generating and publishing an Annual Incident Summary Report that allows for trends to be identified, promote transparency, and to provide assurance that NIH is aware of and has oversight of incidents occurring at our grantee institutions.
• Conducting outreach and education on biosafety and the requirements of the Policy.
The scope of biohazards defined in the Policy is broad; however, different categories of research will require different levels of oversight based on risk. Certain research associated with higher levels of risk or uncertainty must be reviewed and approved at the Federal level by NIH. This research also must be reviewed and approved by the IBC, who may require additional biosafety provisions based upon its risk assessment of the research and local knowledge of facilities features and personnel capacities. Other research must be reviewed and approved by the IBC or delegated for review and approval by an individual or sub-group of the IBC for research of lower risk.
Review and approval for determination of appropriate containment and biosafety practices and procedures must be obtained from NIH for higher risk research including:
• Research involving emerging, novel, or zoonotic agents for which the RG classification or a recommendation for minimum containment level is not available in the BMBL.
• Initial requests for NIH to lower containment for research involving wild type or genetically modified RG3 or RG4 biological agents (
• Initial requests for NIH to lower containment below BSL-2 for research involving GDMOs.
Initiation of research may proceed after approvals from both NIH and the IBC. The IBC may stipulate higher containment or additional biosafety precautions.
For initial submissions of research within the scope of the policy, and not otherwise specified in other sections, review and approval must be obtained from the IBC before initiation. This would include:
• Research involving RG3 or RG4 wild-type biological agents.
• Research involving genetically modified cells, viruses, or organisms, other than plants (
• Research involving toxins listed as Select Agents (
• Research with primary cells that may be contaminated by adventitious agents.
• Research with wild type or genetically modified RG2 biological agents for which lower containment is requested, or research with wild type or genetically modified RG3 or RG4 biological agents that NIH has previously approved to be conducted at lower containment.
• Clinical research involving deliberate administration to one or more
○ Products that are capable of shedding, replicating, or integrating.
○ Products that require higher risk manipulations (
○ RG2 or higher wild type biological agents (
Clinical research cannot be initiated until IBC, and all other applicable institutional and regulatory authorization(s) and approvals have been obtained.
The deliberate transfer of a clinical product, that would otherwise fall under the scope of this Policy, into one human research participant conducted under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulated individual patient expanded access Investigational New Drug (IND), or protocol, including for emergency use, is not research subject to this Policy and does not need to be submitted to an IBC for review and approval.
Review and approval must be obtained before initiation from an individual or a subgroup of IBC members for minor amendments to previously IBC approved submissions or for research including:
• Research involving RG2 wild type biological agents.
• Research with genetically modified RG1 biological agents [Note: Experiments involving RG1 wild-type biological agents are not subject to this Policy].
• Research conducted with transgenic organisms at BSL-1/ABSL-1.
• Research with plasmids or replication-incompetent, non-integrating viral vectors expressing reporter or low-risk transgenes.
• Research with well-characterized cell lines.
• Research with biological toxin proteins not on the Select Agent list.
Individuals or a subgroup of IBC members conducting delegated reviews may elevate review and approval to the full IBC as necessary. The IBC must be notified of all approvals granted by delegated review when granted, and the approval must be reported in full to the IBC at its next scheduled meeting for inclusion in the minutes.
Investigators and IBCs must conduct a comprehensive risk assessment prior to initiating research involving biohazards. Conducting a risk assessment is required as a key part of the responsibilities of investigators and IBCs to provide for the safe conduct of the research. A risk assessment is essential to identify the likelihood of an accidental exposure to, or release of, a biohazard during the conduct of research, and the potential severity of harm to research personnel, the public, or the environment. Based on the risk assessment, an appropriate risk mitigation strategy must be developed to lower the risks associated with the research to an acceptable level.
A risk assessment is a multistep process that involves consideration of:
• The characteristics of the biohazard.
• Manipulations of the biohazard.
• Genetic modifications, if any.
All of these steps are critical to assessing the risks associated with constructing or handling the biohazard. The risks are addressed in the risk mitigation strategy through determination of appropriate physical and biological containment, laboratory safety procedures and practices, personal protective equipment, and training.
Based on the specific research to be conducted, the factors to consider in the risk assessment will differ. The considerations for risk assessment in this document are harmonized with the BMBL, and the BMBL should serve as a primary handbook for conducting risk assessments. Additional requirements and considerations specific to NIH-supported research, including genetic modification of agents or organisms and manipulations, are presented here.
The first step of risk assessment must be to understand the risks associated with the types of biohazards involved in the research. The characteristics of wild-type bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites must be evaluated for their ability to cause disease in humans, population impact, and the availability of countermeasures for that disease. Certain transgenic animals or GDMOs present different risks and may also impact populations or the environment. Risks associated with handling cells or tissues
Biological agents that cause disease in humans are classified into four RGs based on pathogen characteristics and population impacts. Pathogen characteristics include severity of illness, case fatality rate, route of exposure, infectious dose, rate of transmission, and environmental prevalence and stability. Population impacts include status of immunity in humans, availability of preventive or therapeutic countermeasures, vulnerable individuals or groups within populations, and burden on health care systems.
Representative genera and species of bacteria, viruses, fungal and parasitic agents are classified into RGs based on the potential effect on a healthy human adult; however, some individuals may have increased susceptibility, due to preexisting conditions, prescribed medications, compromised immunity, pregnancy, or breast feeding (which may increase exposure of infants to some biological agents), among other factors. Absence of agent specification in the list of RG2- RG4 does not imply automatic or implicit classification as RG1. A risk assessment must be conducted based on the known and potential properties of the agents not listed and their relationship to agents that are listed. Special attention should be given to novel, emerging, or zoonotic agents (Refer to Section IV-1 of this Policy “Research That Requires NIH and IBC Approval Before Initiation”).
Additional resources can be found in the agent summary statements and minimum BSL recommendations in the BMBL. The BMBL also provides information regarding prions and some agents that infect animals. The Federal Select Agent Program (
The starting point for risk assessment must be based on the risks associated
Research involving GDMOs requires risk assessments that incorporate a broader scope of considerations because of greater uncertainty of the technology and potential uncertainty of the impact of the newly modified organism or biological agent. Specific attention must be paid to risks of an unintended release from the laboratory and the potential impact on humans, other populations of organisms, and the environment.
As synthetic biology and other uses of emerging technologies move forward, it may become easier to develop an organism containing genetic sequences from multiple sources such that the parent agent may not be obvious when examined out of context. In such cases, the risk assessment must include at least three levels of analysis:
• The first involves the RG, if available, of the source(s) of the sequences.
• The second involves an assessment of the functions that may be encoded by these sequences (
• The third involves the probability of any synergistic effects of the genetic sequences.
Investigators and IBCs must consider the highest RG classification of all agents that are the source of sequences included in the construct, the percentage of the genome contributed by each parent agent, and the predicted function or intended purpose of each contributing sequence. The initial assumption should be that all sequences will function as they did in the original host context.
The combination of certain sequences in a new biological context may result in an organism whose risk profile could be higher than that of the contributing organisms or sequences. The synergistic function of these sequences may be one of the key attributes to consider in deciding whether a higher containment level is warranted, at least until further assessments can be carried out. During risk assessment, it must be considered that there could be potentially new or unpredictable biosafety risks associated with an organism formed through combination of sequences from a number of organisms or due to the synergistic effect of combining transgenes that results in a new phenotype.
Manipulations of the biohazard must also be considered as they may alter the risks of personnel exposure or release to the environment. Different manipulations may introduce different levels of risk (
Informed by the risk assessment, investigators and IBCs must develop a risk mitigation strategy to help minimize the identified risks of exposure or release of the biohazard. Combinations of mitigation measures to be applied include:
• Physical containment through facility design (
• Biological containment based on the design of the agent or organism, with consideration of the potential for and probability of off-target effects.
• Safety equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE).
• Standard and special practices, procedures, and training.
Four BSLs based on these combinations are described in the BMBL. The BMBL provides the elements for each BSL with protections that increase as the risks associated with the research increase. The BMBL also provides criteria for the animal biosafety level (ABSL) required for work with animals, including in loose housing or open pens. The agent summary sections of the BMBL include some recommendations for the minimum BSL for work with known wild-type agents, toxins, or prions using certain standard procedures. However, investigators and IBCs must conduct a risk assessment for each specific experiment. While both RGs and BSLs/ABSLs have four classification categories (RG1-RG4), these concepts are related but not equivalent. RGs describe the biological properties of the agent, and depending on the work proposed, the appropriate BSL/ABSL used to safely handle the agent may be lower or higher. For instance, while research with an RG3 agent often may be conducted at BSL-3, the research may be conducted at a lower or higher level of laboratory containment based on a thorough consideration of how the agent is going to be manipulated, and if applicable, what genetic modifications are applied to the agent. Also, depending on the specific research to be conducted, the BSL may be combined with enhancements (
Certain research is required to be conducted at a minimum BSL.
• Research involving GDMOs must be conducted at a minimum of BSL-2 containment.
• Experiments with influenza viruses (
• Experiments with influenza viruses containing genes or segments from 1918-1919 H1N1 (1918 H1N1), human H2N2 (1957-1968) and highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 strains within the Goose/Guangdong/96-like H5 lineage (HPAI H5N1), including, but not limited to, strains of HPAI H5N1 virus that are transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets, as demonstrated in an appropriate animal model or clinically in humans, must be conducted at BSL-3 enhanced containment and an occupational health plan is required.
Clinical research involving handling and administration of potentially biohazardous materials to research participants is most often conducted in clinical settings that do not conform to laboratory BSLs. However, precautions to protect personnel must include the use of universal precautions such as
In addition to physical containment, biological or environmental risk mitigation strategies may be applicable for certain biohazards. Biological containment may involve genetically modified biohazards that have been altered to decrease risks by limiting infectivity or replication in specific hosts, or dissemination and survival in the environment outside the laboratory. Environmental containment strategies may include conducting research in a geographically isolated area, an environment in which biohazard organisms are not able to survive (
NIH seeks public input on its Draft NIH Biosafety Policy for Research Involving Biohazards, which, when finalized, will supersede the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. Respondents are free to address any or all of the topics listed or any other relevant topics for NIH to consider. Respondents should not feel compelled to address all items. NIH will consider all comments received. Comments are welcome on all aspects of the draft policy, including the scope, risk assessment, categories of oversight based on risk, roles and responsibilities, IBC functions, and procedures. NIH is also seeking comments on draft incident reporting and IBC meeting minute templates which can be found here (
NIH also seeks comments on specific topics listed below:
• Scope of research covered by the new policy, including the definition of biohazards for the purpose of oversight and any inadvertent gaps in oversight that should be addressed.
• Structure of tiered oversight (
• Continued utility of Risk Groups (RGs) as a baseline for risk assessment, particularly when agents are being genetically modified, versus use of Biosafety Levels (BSL) outlined in the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) (
• Effectiveness of compliance and enforcement mechanisms for ensuring biosafety, including strategies for encouraging voluntary compliance for research not subject to the policy (
• Feedback on the implementation resources and areas in which additional guidance would be beneficial.
This notice is being published in accordance with a statement made by the NIH Director found here (
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0037 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0030. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0095 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0027. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0032 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0047. Submit comments 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
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) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $4,523.00.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0137 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2016-0004. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0079 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0011. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0056 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0030. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0026 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0021. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0159 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2022-0010. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0043 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0013. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0035 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0019. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0003 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0038. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, John
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0069 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0012. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0123 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0003. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0027 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0041. Submit comments 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
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)
The information provided on this form continues to ensure effective interagency communication among the three governmental departments—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOS, and the Department of Defense (DOD)—as well as with NATO/HQ SACT. These departments and organizations utilize this form to facilitate the uniform collection and review of information necessary to determine an alien's eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. This form also ensures that the information regarding findings or actions is communicated among DHS, DOS, DOD, and NATO/HQ SACT.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0111 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0011. Submit comments 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
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)
Form I-129CWR, Semiannual Report for CW-1 Employers, is used by employers to comply with the reporting requirements imposed by the Workforce Act. Form I-129CWR captures data USCIS requires to help verify the continuing employment and payment of the CW-1 worker. DHS may provide such semiannual reports to other Federal partners, including the US. Department of Labor (DOL) for investigative or other use as DOL may deem appropriate. Congress expressly provided for these semiannual reports to be shared with DOL. 48 U.S.C. 1086(d)(3)(D)(ii).
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0069 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0042. Submit comments 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
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
(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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0052 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0025. Submit comments 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
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)
USCIS uses the data collected on this form to verify that the applicant is eligible for a reduced fee for the immigration benefit being requested.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0016 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0070. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0124 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2012-0012. Submit comments 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
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)
1. Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
2. Came to the United States before reaching his or her 16th birthday;
3. Has continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;
4. Was present in the United States on June 15, 2012 and at the time of making his or her request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
5. Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012;
(a) You never had a lawful immigration status on or before June 15, 2012; or
(b) Any lawful immigration status or parole that you obtained prior to June 15, 2012 had expired as of June 15, 2012.
6. Is currently in school, has graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, has obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or is an
7. Has not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-029 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0042. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0106 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0010. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0005 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2009-0021. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0050 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0020. Submit comments 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
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)
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 14, 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0044 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0012. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0015 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0018. Submit comments 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
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
(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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0001 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0028. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0020 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0024. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0072 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0077. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0018 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2005-0034. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0010 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0050. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0018 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0009. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0135 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2015-0004. Submit comments 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
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)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until November 13, 2026.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0057 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0023. Submit comments 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
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)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew a currently approved information collection with change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 14, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Madonna L. Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
On March 13, 2026, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
• U.S. Department of Justice; Regulations of the Attorney General Governing the Review and Approval of Title for Federal Land Acquisitions (2016);
• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601
• National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
• Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718a
• Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 715-715r);
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (54 U.S.C. 200301
• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
• Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901); and
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a).
The Service tracks information collected from landowners as part of the preliminary land acquisition process. Information collected by the Service as part of the preliminary land acquisition process may include the following:
•
○ Identifying information for the legal property owner(s), such as:
○ Financial information, to include Social Security Numbers (necessary for final payment transaction).
○ Property description, to include such information as:
•
○ Appraisal valuations;
○ Boundary survey;
○ Hazardous materials examination (contaminant survey); and
○ Physical examination of any structures on the property.
We do not use Form 3-2471 in projects that are under Memoranda of Understanding, Memoranda of Agreement, Cooperative Agreements, certain donation partnerships, and other special cases.
•
Unless delivered in person, both the Permission to Inspect and Appraise form (Form 3-2471) and the Waiver of Appraisal Requirement form (Form 3-2461) will contain a cover letter referred to as the access permission letter. The access permission letter does not request any information, but is used to explain the form or waiver process.
Information is collected and protected in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We will maintain the information in a secure system of records (Real Property Records, FWS-11; 71 FR 68635 (November 27, 2006); modification published 88 FR 16277 (March 16, 2023)). We gather Social Security numbers and banking information to assist with electronic payments and preparation of the required Internal Revenue Service 1099 Forms.
The Service proposes to rescind Form 3-2471, “Permission to Inspect and Appraise” and Form 3-2461, “Waiver of Appraisal Requirement” forms because the property information was previously provided in the initial landowner request and is prepopulated by the Service, and the property owner signs only to verify and approve the information. Therefore, since the property owners are not required to resubmit this information, the forms do not require OMB approval under the PRA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 22, 2026, 2026, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 29, 2026.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 22, 2026. Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.13, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination(s) and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s) and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer did not respond to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s). In accordance with the National Park Service Centennial Act (Pub. L. 114-289), the State Historic Preservation Officer's “failure to meet this deadline shall constitute a recommendation to not support the nomination(s).”
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 15, 2026, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by September 29, 2026.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 15, 2026. Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.13, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination(s) and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s) and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-806 and 731-TA-1805-1807 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that 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 corrugated pizza boxes from China, Malaysia, and Turkey, provided for in subheading 4819.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and alleged to be subsidized by the Government of Turkey. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by October 26, 2026. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 2, 2026.
September 9, 2026.
Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations 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 B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Vicor Corporation on September 9, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 3o37 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain vertical power delivery systems, components thereof, and computing systems containing the same. The complaint names as respondents: Delta Electronics, Inc. of Taiwan; Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. of Fremont, CA; DET Logistics (USA) Corporation of Fremont, CA; Infineon Technologies AG of Germany; Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. of China; Dongguan Luxshare Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Luxshare-Tech of China; Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. of Kirkland, WA; Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co., Ltd. of China; MPS International (Shanghai) Ltd. of China; Flex Ltd. of Austin, TX; Celestica Inc. of Canada; Quanta Computer Inc. of Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology Inc. of Taiwan; Quanta Cloud Technology USA LLC of San Jose, CA; Quanta Computer USA Inc. of Fremont, CA; Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (d/b/a Foxconn) of Taiwan; Foxconn Industrial internet Co. Ltd. of China; FII USA Inc. (a/k/a Foxconn Industrial internet USA Inc.) of Milwaukee, WI; Ingrasys Technology Inc. 5F., No. 1188, of Taiwan; and Ingrasys Technology USA Inc. of San Jose, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon the respondent alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3936”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 17) granting Dolby Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to intervene as an intervenor.
Lisa A. Murray, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2781. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On April 2, 2026, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by InterDigital, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware; InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. of Wilmington, Delaware; and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS of Paris, France (collectively, “InterDigital”). 91 FR 16743-44 (Apr. 2, 2026). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain video-capable electronic devices, including smart televisions, monitors, and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,085,846 (the '846 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,294,784 (the '784 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,250,877 (the '877 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,695,962 (the '962 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,399,168 (the '168 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,654,751 (the '751 patent”).
The Commission's notice of investigation named the following as respondents: TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; TCL Technology Group Corp. of Guangdong, China; TCL Electronics Holdings Limited of New Territories, Hong Kong; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Company, Limited of Huizhou, China; TCL Overseas Marketing Limited of New Territories, Hong Kong; TCL Smart
On July 10, 2026, non-party Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (“Dolby”) filed a motion pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19, 19 CFR 210.19, to intervene as an intervenor with full participation rights as to the '168 and '751 patents. On July 22, 2026, Complainants filed an opposition to the motion. Dolby filed a reply in support of its motion on July 27, 2026. While no other responses were received, Dolby certifies that the Respondents do not oppose the motion.
On August 12, 2026, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 17) granting Dolby's motion. The ALJ has determined that Dolby should be granted intervenor status in this investigation, but not status as a respondent. The ID states that Dolby's participation in this investigation should begin with the issuance of the subject ID and that Dolby may participate as an intervenor, including with respect to all claims and defenses at issue in the investigation regarding the '168 and '751 patents. No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The Commission vote for this determination took place on September 9, 2026.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Irvine Labs, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on, or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 14, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 14, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 13, 2026, Irvine Labs, Inc., 7305 Murdy Circle, Huntington Beach, California 92647-3533, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import bulk substances to support internal research, clinical trials, analytical purposes, and distribution to their customers. In reference to drug codes Marihuana Extract (7350), Marihuana (7360) and Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), the company plans to import a raw plant material and extracts. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Cambrex High Point, Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before November 13, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before November 13, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 29, 2026, Cambrex High Point, Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265-8017, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to manufacture the above listed controlled substances in bulk for use as an internal intermediates and distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
On September 9, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the lawsuit entitled
The United States' complaint seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (“RLBPHRA”), from the Estate of Harry D. Silverstein (“Silverstein”), relating to Silverstein's failure to make required disclosures to tenants in fourteen residential buildings entering into new and certain renewal leases about lead-based paint in their apartment as required by the Lead Disclosure Rule (24 CFR part 35, subpart A, and 40 CFR part 745, subpart F). After Silverstein passed away, his estate (the “Estate”) continued to own and manage the residential buildings and again routinely violated lead paint safety regulations. Additionally, the United States seeks relief under TSCA for Silverstein's and the Estate's failures to comply with safe work practices and related requirements during renovations as required by the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (40 CFR part 745, subpart E). The Stipulation and Order of Settlement requires the Estate to pay a $4.0 million administrative penalty to the United States under TSCA and the RLBPHRA.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Stipulation and Order of Settlement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the Stipulation and Order of Settlement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
On September 9, 2026, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed final supplemental consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota in the lawsuit entitled
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Pipeline Safety Laws, and North Dakota state law arising from the failure of Belle Fourche Pipeline Company's Bicentennial Pipeline approximately 17.4 pipeline miles west of the Skunk Hill station, in Billings County, North Dakota, on or about December 1, 2016, resulting in the discharge of oil into an unnamed tributary to Ash Coulee Creek (the “Ash Coulee spill”). Except for certain claims relating to remediation of the Ash Coulee spill site, referred to as the “Reserved Remediation Claims,” the claims in the lawsuit were resolved by a Partial Consent Decree entered on October 2, 2023.
The proposed final supplemental consent decree would resolve the Reserved Remediation Claims and requires Belle Fourche Pipeline Company (“Defendant”) to implement a Remediation Work Plan to address environmental impacts resulting from the Ash Coulee Spill. Subject to certain reservations, entering into and fully complying with the proposed final supplemental consent decree will also resolve Plaintiffs' claims, through the date of lodging, for any discharges or releases to surface water relating to the Ash Coulee Spill.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the final supplemental consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Energy and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the final supplemental consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Weeks of September 14, 21, 28, and October 5, 12, 19, 2026. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public and closed.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 14, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 21, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 5, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of October 19, 2026.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's 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.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
91 FR 57183, September 8, 2026.
Thursday, September 10, 2026, at 2 p.m.
The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 10, 2026, at 2 p.m., has been changed to Thursday, September 10, 2026, at 3 p.m.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing Partial Cabinet Solution bundle. The description of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles and related fees in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) would be updated accordingly. 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,
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution (“PCS”) bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing PCS bundle. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a 4 kW PCS bundle and change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle. The description of the PCS bundles and related fees in the Fee Schedule would be updated accordingly.
The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become operative no later than October 31, 2026. The Exchange will announce the date through a customer notice.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users
The PCS bundles were designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
To respond to Users' increased power needs, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional 4 kW PCS bundle. To differentiate it from the existing 2 kW PCS bundle, the Exchange proposes to label them as Options A and B. Like the existing 2 kW PCS Option A, the proposed Option B would be sized to meet the needs of smaller Users and their current power needs.
At the same time, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” to “Precision Time Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle, to conform the reference to the terminology used elsewhere in the Fee Schedule.
To implement the changes, the Exchange would amend Note 1, in relevant part, as follows (proposed additions italicized):
1. To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) it must purchase only one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; (2) the User and its Affiliates must not currently have a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; and (3) after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, will have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
The Exchange would also amend the Fee Schedule to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference. The amended Fee Schedule would read as follows (proposed deletions bracketed; proposed additions italicized):
The proposed change would apply to all PCS bundles. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Price List is applied uniformly to all Users.
The Exchange expects to obtain at most a handful of new Users as a result of offering the 4 kW PCS bundles. A User, including a User with a 4 kW dedicated cabinet, would be able to convert to the 4 kW PCS bundle if it otherwise met the conditions. The Exchange does not expect to obtain new Users as a result of the other changes.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are reasonable, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing the proposed 4 kW PCS bundles—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
The proposed change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. There would be no ambiguity as to what the language referred to, and so the change is reasonable.
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market participants equally.
The 2 kW PCS bundle was designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. As equipment has evolved, even those with minimal demands need more power to meet the requirements of their hardware, such that even smaller Users may not find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle meets their needs adequately. The proposed 4 kW PCS bundle would be responsive to the evolution of equipment, and so the Exchange believes that its introduction is equitable because it would not force
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users would have fewer usable options. This would be a detriment for them, especially for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because only Users that voluntarily select a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged for it. As is true now, 4 kW PCS bundles would be available to all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged the same amount, and be subject to the same restrictions, for that bundle.
The proposed changes to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are not unfairly discriminatory, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle. The Exchange notes that the equipment for the two services is not the same: different cabinets are needed for the 4 kW PCS bundle as compared to the 2 kW PCS bundle.
In addition, the proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” would add clarity. Similarly, the proposed change to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would add clarity and conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would therefore make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The proposed rule changes 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.
The proposed change does not affect competition among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange. The proposed changes would enhance competition by giving smaller Users the option to have a 4 kW PCS bundle to meet their needs. The proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to current or potential Users who might otherwise opt to purchase 4 kW partial cabinets and other co-location services, or 2 kW PCS bundles. It would therefore enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, as they would have more options from which to select. This could be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. At the same time, however, no potential or current User would be obligated to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” and to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would not address competition but rather would make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 17, 2026.
The meeting will be held via remote means and at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 19(a) (15 U.S.C. 80a-19(a)) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a) makes it unlawful for any registered investment company to pay any dividend or similar distribution from any source other than the company's net income, unless the payment is accompanied by a written statement to the company's shareholders which adequately discloses the sources of the payment. Section 19(a) authorizes the Commission to prescribe the form of such statement by rule.
Rule 19a-1 (17 CFR 270.19a-1) under the Act, entitled “Written Statement to Accompany Dividend Payments by Management Companies,” sets forth specific requirements for the information that must be included in statements made pursuant to section 19(a) by or on behalf of management companies.
The purpose of rule 19a-1 is to afford fund shareholders adequate disclosure of the sources from which distribution payments are made. The rule is intended to prevent shareholders from confusing income dividends with distributions made from capital sources. Absent rule 19a-1, shareholders might receive a false impression of fund gains.
Based on a review of filings made with the Commission, the staff estimates that approximately 14,122 series of registered investment companies that are management companies may be
The staff estimates that approximately one-third of the total annual burden (9,415 hours) would be incurred by a paralegal with an average hourly wage rate of approximately $285 per hour,
To comply with state law, many investment companies already must distinguish the different sources from which a shareholder distribution is paid and disclose that information to shareholders. Thus, many investment companies would be required to distinguish the sources of shareholder dividends whether or not the Commission required them to do so under rule 19a-1.
These estimates are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Compliance with the collection of information required by rule 19a-1 is mandatory for management companies that make statements to shareholders pursuant to section 19(a) of the Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend its rules to permit the trading of equity securities and UTP Exchange Traded Products on the Exchange 23 hours per day, five days per week. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to permit the trading of equity securities and UTP Exchange Traded Products on the Exchange 23 hours per day, five days per week (“23×5 Trading”). The proposal is based substantially on a proposal submitted by Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”) that was recently approved by the Commission.
The latest change to impact the markets is rising investor interest in trading U.S. equities during overnight hours, especially among investors located outside of the United States. To align MEMX with emerging investor interest in trading outside of traditional U.S. Market hours, the Exchange proposes to extend its hours for trading to 23 hours per day, 5 days per week. The Exchange believes that 23×5 Trading will benefit investors and the national market system by increasing market accessibility, promoting capital formation, and facilitating portfolio management.
Currently, Users
To accommodate 23×5 Trading, the Exchange proposes to introduce a new Overnight Trading Session, along with conforming amendments to its session-specific order handling rules, as described below.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to enable 23×5 Trading by adopting a new Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange proposes to amend and adopt certain definitions provided in Exchange Rule 1.5.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt the new defined term, “Overnight Trading Session.” As proposed, the Overnight Trading Session shall mean the time between 9:00 p.m. on any night preceding a business day
Second, proposed Rule 1.5(i) would define “Equity Data Plans” to mean the effective national market system plan(s) governing the collection, consolidation, processing, and dissemination of consolidated equity market data via the exclusive securities information processors (“SIPs”), including: (1) the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”); (2) the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”); (3) the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (“UTP Plan”); (4) the CT Plan established by the Limited Liability Company Agreement of CT Plan LLC; and (5) any successor to the named Plan(s).
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 11.1 (Hours of Trading and Trading Days), 11.6 (Definitions), 11.8 (Order Types and Modifiers), 11.10 (Order Execution), 11.15 (Clearly Erroneous Executions), 11.22 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts on the Exchange), and to adopt Rule 11.24 (Weekday Trading Pauses) to reflect necessary updates to provide for 23x5 trading functionality.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.1(a) to add reference to the Overnight Trading Session, and to adopt Rule 11.1(a)(1) to establish session eligibility framework to accommodate 23x5 Trading. Under current Rule 11.1(a), orders may be entered, canceled, modified, executed on, or routed away from the Exchange during the Pre-Market Session, the Market Session,
The Exchange proposes to add the Overnight Trading Session to the list of sessions in which orders may be entered, canceled, modified, executed on or routed away from the Exchange, and indicate that orders may be entered into the System starting at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on any day preceding a business day, as provided in Rule 11.1(b), until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the same trading day.
Proposed Rule 11.1(a)(1) would provide that an order is eligible to participate in the designated trading session(s) only and may remain in effect for one or more consecutive trading sessions on a particular day. An order designated for a session that has not yet begun or has already ended will be rejected. An order entered without a trading session designation will default to a Day
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.1(b) to define “business day” and to specify the days on which the Exchange will be open for trading under the proposed 23x5 framework. A business day is any day the Exchange is open for trading, which includes any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, other than a holiday listed below. The Exchange will not be open for business on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Juneteenth National Independence Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the Exchange will not be open for business on the preceding Friday. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the Exchange will not be open for business on the following Monday, unless otherwise indicated by the Exchange. On days when the Exchange closes early (“Early Market Close”), Regular Trading Hours will be from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the Post-Market Session will be from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Trading shall resume with the Overnight Trading Session on any night preceding a business day. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 11.1(b) to provide that the Exchange will be open for the transaction of business on each business day, including the Overnight Trading Session on the preceding calendar day.
Under the proposed 23x5 framework, the trading day will be structured as follows. The Overnight Trading Session will run from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., followed by the Pre-Market Session from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Regular Trading Hours from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and the Post-Market Session from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. each weekday, the Exchange will pause trading to conduct maintenance, testing, and processing of corporate actions (such as mergers, stock splits, and dividends) that become effective the following trading day.
The Exchange does not propose any changes to its existing TIF instructions in connection with the Overnight Trading Session, with two exceptions described below. The Exchange believes the existing TIF framework otherwise accommodates the proposed 23x5 structure without modification.
The Exchange proposes a conforming amendment to the Day order TIF
This amendment is limited to conforming the Day order definition to the expanded order entry window introduced by the proposed 23x5 framework and does not alter any other aspect of the Day order TIF instruction. For the avoidance of doubt, orders will expire on the trading day for which they are entered; as described above, a trading day is deemed to begin at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the preceding calendar day. As amended, a Day Order entered at 9:00 p.m. on a day preceding a business day will remain eligible for execution throughout the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Market Session, and Regular Trading Hours on that business day, expiring at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time that trading day.
Second, the Exchange is proposing a conforming amendment to the definition of the TIF “Good-'til Time (“GTT”) in order to permit acceptance of GTT Orders during the Overnight Trading Session. Currently, GTT is a TIF the User may attach to an order specifying the time of day at which the order expires, which is designated for execution starting with the Pre-Market Session. Any unexecuted portion of an order with a TIF instruction of GTT will be cancelled at the expiration of the User's specified time, which can be no later than the close of the Post-Market Session. At this time, the Exchange proposes to replace the reference to the “Pre-Market Session” with the “Overnight Trading Session”, as the intent of the 23x5 framework is to begin the business day with the Overnight Trading Session, rather than the Pre-Market Session. This amendment is limited to conforming the GTT order definition to the expanded order entry window introduced by the proposed 23x5 framework and does not alter any other aspect of the GTT order instruction.
The Exchange proposes two conforming amendments to Rule 11.8 to add reference to the Overnight Trading Session in the two order types that currently specify session eligibility, Limit Orders
As noted previously, Pegged Orders are currently eligible for execution during the Pre-Market Session, Market Session, and Post-Market Session, and per Rule 11.6(h)(1) and (2), a User may, but is not required to, include a limit price on Pegged Orders. The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 11.8(c)(4) to require that any Pegged Orders entered outside of Regular Trading Hours must be entered with a limit price. Specifically, the Exchange's proposed text indicates all Pegged Orders may be entered during the Market Session, and only Pegged Orders with a limit price may be entered during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Market Session, and the Post-Market Session.
The Exchange proposes a conforming amendment to Rule 11.10 to reference the Overnight Trading Session in the provision governing compliance with Regulation NMS. As amended, for any execution to occur during the Overnight Trading Session, Pre-Market Session, or Post-Market Session, the price must be equal to or better than the highest bid or lowest offer in the MEMX Book or as disseminated by the responsible single plan processor, unless the order is marked ISO or a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer. This amendment is non-substantive and preserves the existing execution standard applicable outside of Regular Trading Hours.
Additionally, to support 23x5 trading, the Exchange will offer Members a risk control under Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policy .01(c) that would prohibit orders from executing during the Overnight Trading Session. The Exchange plans to offer this new control as one of the controls available to Members under this provision, which permits the Exchange to offer “controls related to the order types or modifiers that can be utilized (including pre-market, post-market, short sales and ISOs)”. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add the word “overnight” to the parenthetical in Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policy .01(c).
The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 11.15 to add references to the Overnight Trading Session throughout the clearly erroneous execution framework. These amendments appear in the provisions governing review of transactions occurring outside of Regular Trading Hours, including the numerical guidelines table, the Multi-Stock Event
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 11.24 to govern the daily trading pause that will occur between the close of the Post-Market Session and the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on each weekday. As proposed, the Exchange will pause trading at the conclusion of the Post-Market Session at 8:00 p.m. and resume trading with the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m. on the day preceding the next business day. This one-hour pause is intended to provide the Exchange with time to conduct necessary maintenance and testing, and to process corporate actions, such as mergers, stock splits, and dividends, that become effective the following trading day.
The pause also provides market participants with time to process and clear trades before the start of a new trading day. Proposed Rule 11.24(a)(1) provides that all orders outstanding on the MEMX Book as of 8:00 p.m. at the end of the Post-Market Session will be cancelled. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to cancel all resting orders at the close of the Post-Market Session each weekday to ensure that orders are not carried over into the next trading day without an explicit order instruction by a Member. This approach provides Members with a clean start to each trading day and reduces the risk of unintended executions based on stale order instructions.
Proposed Rule 11.24(a)(2) provides that the Exchange will begin accepting orders again at the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time and continue until 8:00 p.m. the following calendar day, provided the next calendar day is not a holiday or a Friday. Proposed Rule 11.24(a)(2) also provides that trades occurring at or after the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session at 9:00 p.m. will be assigned a trade date of the following day, reflecting that the Overnight Trading Session economically belongs to the next trading day even though it commences the prior evening.
The Exchange proposes conforming amendments to Rule 11.22 to insert references to the Overnight Trading Session with the Pre-Market Session. These amendments are non-substantive and are intended solely to conform the unlisted trading privileges framework to the proposed 23x5 session structure by updating the applicable session nomenclature and hours.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 3.21(h) to establish tailored customer disclosure obligations specific to the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session. The existing customer disclosure framework under Rule 3.21 requires Members to disclose the material trading risks associated with extended hours trading prior to accepting an order for execution in those sessions.
First, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(1) addresses the risk of trading during hours in which primary listing markets may not be open. Unlike the Post-Market Session, which occurs in close proximity to Regular Trading Hours, the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session operate during hours in which primary listing exchanges may not be conducting their own trading, regulatory surveillance, or other regulatory functions with respect to their listed securities. The Exchange believes it is important that customers understand that the regulatory infrastructure ordinarily provided by primary listing exchanges may not be available during these sessions.
Second, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(2) addresses the risk that regulatory protections available during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session may be more limited or different than those available during Regular Trading Hours. For example, certain volatility control mechanisms applicable to individual symbols and the broader equities market may not be available during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session. The Exchange believes customers should be informed of these potential gaps in regulatory protections before trading during these sessions.
Third, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(3) addresses the risk arising from limited trading alternatives during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session. Because the Exchange may be the only exchange trading certain securities during these hours, customers may face greater exposure to losses in the event of systems failures or other operational issues on the Exchange, as alternative execution venues may not be available.
Fourth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(4) addresses the risks associated with near- continuous trading under the 23x5 framework. With the implementation of the Overnight Trading Session, trading on the Exchange will occur on a near-continuous basis throughout the week, with only limited breaks. This structure may present heightened risks related to system maintenance and testing, as well as the pausing and resumption of trading, as there will be fewer extended breaks during which such activities can be conducted without impacting market participants.
Fifth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(5) addresses the risk of trading during hours in which financial market infrastructure companies are closed. Certain important financial market infrastructure providers, including other markets, banks, Fedwire Funds Service, and certain other providers of settlement services, may be closed during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session. Trading during hours in which the relevant clearing agency and other settlement service providers are closed may result in an increased passage of time between the execution of a transaction and its final settlement, which may expose customers to additional counterparty and settlement risk.
Sixth, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(6) addresses the risk arising from the novel nature of overnight exchange trading. Exchange-facilitated trading during overnight hours is a relatively new
Seventh, proposed Rule 3.21(h)(7) provides a general catch-all disclosure acknowledging that the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session may present additional unforeseen risks beyond those specifically enumerated in proposed Rule 3.21(h)(1) through (6). The Exchange believes this provision is appropriate given the evolving nature of extended hours trading and the potential for market conditions or operational circumstances that cannot be fully anticipated at this time.
The Exchange believes that the proposed disclosures under Rule 3.21(h) are necessary and appropriate to ensure that customers are fully informed of the unique risks presented by the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session prior to participating in trading during those hours. The proposed disclosures are consistent with the customer protection principles underlying the existing Rule 3.21 framework and reflect the Exchange's commitment to investor protection in connection with the expansion of its trading hours under the proposed 23x5 framework.
The implementation of 23x5 Trading represents an extension of trading hours rather than a fundamental restructuring of Exchange operations or rules. With the exception of the specific amendments discussed above, the Exchange's operational processes, rule text, and surveillance programs will continue to apply in the same manner as they do today. The following MEMX rules and system features will remain unchanged and will apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session: Order Types and Order Execution; Membership Rules and Rules of Fair Practice; Market Maker Obligations and Priority of Orders; Trading Practice Rules and Disciplinary Rules and Enforcement; Clearly Erroneous Execution Protections; and Risk Settings.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange's existing halt rules will apply during the Overnight Trading Session. Consistent with current practice during other extended hours sessions, the Exchange will halt trading in a security during the Overnight Trading Session to the extent required to follow a halt imposed by the primary listing exchange for that security. To the extent a security is subject to a regulatory halt, news dissemination halt, or other trading pause imposed by the primary listing exchange or a national securities regulator, the Exchange will halt trading in that security consistent with applicable rules and regulatory requirements.
The Exchange's clearly erroneous execution rules under Rule 11.15 will apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session, as they currently apply during the Pre-Market Session and other extended hours sessions. No substantive changes to those rules are proposed in connection with this filing. As such, the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous rules will continue to mirror those adopted by each national security exchange and will continue to ensure that there are consistent standards across each exchange for breaking trades, and continuing to promote the orderly and efficient operation of the equities markets.
The Exchange's existing surveillance programs and compliance infrastructure will likewise apply fully to trading in the Overnight Trading Session. The Exchange currently operates a comprehensive regulatory program applicable to the Pre-Market Session, Regular Trading Hours, and Post-Market Session, encompassing a suite of automated trade surveillance tools, routine Member examinations, and an exam-based regulatory program. This regulatory program will extend to the Overnight Trading Session without modification, ensuring that Members trading during overnight hours are subject to the same level of oversight applicable to trading in other sessions. Similarly, the Exchange's existing risk settings and controls (including single order price and size protections and other fat finger safeguards) will remain available and operative during the Overnight Trading Session. The Exchange believes that these existing protections, taken together, provide a robust framework for managing risk during overnight trading that is consistent with the protections available during other extended hours sessions.
As noted above, the Exchange will not implement its proposed rule changes or commence operation of the Overnight Trading Session until the Equity Data Plan readiness conditions set forth in proposed Rule 1.5(i) have been satisfied. Prior to commencing operation of the Overnight Trading Session, the Exchange will file a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder confirming that: (i) the Exchange is able to comply with its obligations under the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder during the Overnight Trading Session; and (ii) the Equity Data Plans are prepared to collect, consolidate, process, and disseminate quotation and transaction information at all times during the Overnight Trading Session. Upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, the Exchange will announce via Trader Alert the implementation date for its proposed rule changes and the go-live date for 23x5 Trading. If the Overnight Trading Session Proposed Rule Change is not filed within 18 months of the effectiveness of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will promptly file a proposed rule change to remove the rules applicable to the Overnight Trading Session.
Any impact of the Exchange's 23x5 proposal on its fee schedule will be addressed in a subsequent fee filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing a rules framework to support 23x5 Trading. As described above, the Exchange believes that 23x5 Trading will benefit investors and the national market system by increasing market accessibility, promoting capital
The Exchange further believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because the proposed Overnight Trading Session will operate in substantially the same manner as the Exchange's existing extended hours sessions. All order types, execution processes, membership rules, market maker obligations, priority rules, disciplinary rules, clearly erroneous execution protections, risk settings, and fat finger safeguards applicable to the Exchange's existing sessions will continue to apply in full during the Overnight Trading Session. The Exchange believes that applying its existing operational and regulatory framework to the Overnight Trading Session is consistent with the Act's goals of ensuring market integrity, investor protection, and fair and orderly trading. The Exchange represents that its systems have the capacity to accommodate the proposed 23x5 Trading functionality.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new definitions, including the Overnight Trading Session and Equity Data Plans, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adding clarity and transparency to the Exchange's rules. The proposed Overnight Trading Session definition, anchored to the concept of a “night preceding a business day” rather than enumerated calendar days, provides a durable and flexible framework that accommodates the Exchange's trading calendar without requiring recurring conforming amendments. The Exchange believes these definitional additions facilitate the understanding of and compliance with Exchange rules, thereby removing potential confusion and promoting just and equitable principles of trade.
The Exchange believes the proposed streamlined order entry framework under Rule 11.1(a) similarly removes impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market by adding the Overnight Trading Session to the fulsome list of trading sessions offered by the Exchange during which orders may be entered, canceled, modified, executed on or routed away from the Exchange, and replacing the Exchange's current operating hours with the new operating hours which include the Overnight Trading Session. The proposed trading session designation requirement under Rule 11.1(a)(1) promotes transparency and investor protection by ensuring that each order is clearly designated for the session(s) in which it will remain eligible to participate, consistent with the approach taken by other national securities exchanges that have adopted or sought to adopt extended overnight trading frameworks.
The Exchange believes that the proposed introduction of a defined term “business day” in Rule11.1(b), together with the codification of the concept of an Early Market Close and the corresponding adjustments to the Exchange's trading calendar, is consistent with Section6(b)(5) of the Act because these amendments remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. As proposed, a “business day” is any day the Exchange is open for trading, each Monday through Friday that is not a holiday, thereby providing a clear and predictable foundation for determining when the Overnight Trading Session will operate. This definition, which does not rely on enumerated calendar days, enhances transparency and flexibility by ensuring that the commencement of the Overnight Trading Session is tied to whether the following day is a trading day rather than to fixed days of the week. The proposed amendment also provides that the Exchange will be open for the transaction of business on each business day, including the Overnight Trading Session on the preceding calendar day, thereby confirming the full scope of Exchange operations under the 23x5 framework and providing Members with a clear and comprehensive statement of when the Exchange is open. This structure accommodates holiday closures, holiday-observed weekends, and unforeseen non-business days without requiring further amendments to the session definition. Likewise, the proposal's integration of Early Market Close days (under which Regular Trading Hours conclude at 1:00 p.m. and the Post-Market Session ends at 5:00 p.m., with the market closure becoming effective on the calendar day preceding the closure date) provides that the transition into the Overnight Trading Session remains orderly, predictable, and aligned with the modified market-wide trading schedule. Together, these provisions provide Members with a uniform, rules-based mechanism for determining when the Exchange will commence and pause trading under the proposed 23x5 framework, promote just and equitable principles of trade by reducing uncertainty and the risk of misaligned order entry during session transitions, and foster cooperation and coordination with other market participants and infrastructure providers by grounding the Overnight Trading Session in a clear and durable trading-day framework. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed amendments are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because they provide predictable and transparent operational parameters for the launch and operation of the Overnight Trading Session.
The Exchange believes that conditioning commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on satisfaction of the Equity Data Plan readiness requirements set forth in proposed Rule 1.5(i) is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with the Act's requirements that exchange rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect to securities transactions, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. As the Commission has recognized in approving similar conditions for other exchanges seeking to operate overnight sessions, this requirement is designed to reasonably ensure that consolidated quotation and transaction data are provided in a manner consistent with existing extended hours sessions, and that trading will not occur until the infrastructure necessary to support fair and orderly markets during overnight hours is in place.
The Exchange believes the proposed conforming amendments to its Limit Order and Pegged Order order type rules are consistent with the Act because they include the Overnight Trading Session in addition to the Pre-Market, Market, and Post-Market Sessions, thereby ensuring a consistent and investor-protective trading environment across all extended hours sessions.
The Exchange believes the proposed Weekday Trading Pause under new Rule 11.24 is consistent with the Act because it promotes the protection of investors and the public interest by providing the Exchange and market participants with a defined period each weekday to conduct maintenance and testing, process pending corporate actions, and clear end-of-day positions before a new trading day commences. The cancellation of all resting orders at the end of the Post-Market Session at 8:00 p.m. each weekday promotes investor protection by ensuring that Members must affirmatively re-enter orders for the following trading day, reducing the risk of unintended executions based on stale order instructions.
The Exchange believes proposed Rule 3.21(h) is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that exchange rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest. The seven categories of risk disclosure required by proposed Rule 3.21(h) (addressing the absence of primary listing market oversight during overnight hours, the potential for more limited regulatory protections, limited trading alternatives, risks associated with near-continuous trading, the closure of financial market infrastructure companies during overnight hours, the novel nature of overnight exchange trading, and potential unforeseen risks) are tailored to the specific characteristics of the Overnight Trading Session and the Pre-Market Session, and are substantially similar to the disclosures required by the Commission in approving the rules of other national securities exchanges operating on an extended overnight basis.
The Exchange believes that extending its existing surveillance programs and compliance infrastructure to the Overnight Trading Session is consistent with the Act because it provides that trading during overnight hours is subject to the same comprehensive regulatory oversight applicable to trading during other sessions, including automated trade surveillance, routine Member examinations, and an exam-based regulatory program. Exchange staff will be available during the Overnight Trading Session to maintain a fair and orderly market, issue necessary rulings, implement trading halts, and take any other action that may be necessary, consistent with the Exchange's obligations under the Act and its rules.
The Exchange also believes the proposal is consistent with the Act because it will foster competition by providing investors with access to another regulated national securities exchange that offers trading during overnight hours, consistent with similar proposals approved by the Commission for other national securities exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which investors seeking overnight access to U.S. equities currently resort to alternative trading systems, foreign securities markets, and other venues. Enabling 23x5 Trading on the Exchange will allow it to compete for order flow from these investors, which the Exchange believes will increase market accessibility, promote capital formation, and facilitate portfolio management.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will, in fact, enhance competition by providing investors with access to an additional regulated national securities exchange offering trading during overnight hours.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Overnight Trading Session will be available to all Members on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. All Members will have the same opportunity to enter orders, access liquidity, and participate in trading during the Overnight Trading Session under the same rules, order type eligibility requirements, and session designation framework applicable to all other Exchange trading sessions. The proposed customer disclosure requirements under Rule 3.21(h) will similarly apply uniformly to all Members that accept orders for execution during the Overnight Trading Session and Pre-Market Session, ensuring that all customers receive consistent information about the risks associated with trading during those hours regardless of which Member they use. The proposed rule change does not create any special rights, preferences, or advantages for any particular class of Member or market participant.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote intermarket competition by enabling the Exchange to compete with other national securities exchanges and trading venues that currently offer, or are in the process of offering, extended overnight trading in U.S. equity securities. Investors currently seeking overnight access to U.S. equities may resort to alternative trading systems, foreign securities markets, or other off-exchange venues. By enabling 23x5 Trading on a regulated national securities exchange, the Exchange's proposal provides investors with a regulated, transparent, and competitive alternative to these venues, which the Exchange believes will benefit the national market system.
As noted above, the Exchange's proposal is substantively consistent with similar overnight trading proposals that the Commission has previously approved for other national securities exchanges, including EDGX, 24X, NYSE Arca, and Nasdaq. The Exchange does not believe that its proposal confers any competitive advantage on MEMX relative to other exchanges that have received approval for similar frameworks. Rather, the Exchange's
Furthermore, the Exchange's proposal to condition commencement of the Overnight Trading Session on satisfaction of the Equity Data Plan readiness requirements provides that 23x5 Trading will not commence until the consolidated data infrastructure necessary to support a fair, transparent, and competitive overnight trading market is in place. The Exchange believes this condition serves the interests of the national market system as a whole and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is filed for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of Act
As discussed above, the proposal is based on EDGX's filing, and other exchanges have similarly received approval to offer 23x5 trading.
For all the foregoing reasons, this rule filing qualifies for immediate effectiveness as a “non-controversial” rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to update the definition of “Trading Platform.” The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Trading Platform” set forth in the Definitions section of its Fee Schedule. The existing definition enumerates three categories of execution venue—a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, and an Electronic Communications Network. The Exchange now seeks to amend this definition to add an additional category—namely, a similar order-matching execution venue or decentralized platform (including blockchain-based or tokenized environments)—so that the term also captures other venues that perform functionally equivalent order-matching and execution. The current and proposed amended definitions are set forth below.
The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, including the increasing use of functionally equivalent order-matching venues that operate outside the three enumerated categories. For example, under the current definition, a platform operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, or an Electronic Communications Network plainly constitutes a Trading Platform and is thus subject to the applicable fees associated with a Trading Platform.
The Exchange notes that the phrase “similar order-matching execution venue” is intended to be construed broadly and is not limited to blockchain-based or tokenized platforms. Rather, it is intended to encompass any functionally equivalent order-matching venue, including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes and/or facilitates execution of client order flow. The parenthetical reference to blockchain-based or tokenized environments is illustrative of the types of emerging venues the amended definition is intended to reach and is not intended to limit the scope of the broader category.
The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity as to the scope of “Trading Platform,” with new and emerging execution technologies in mind. The Exchange notes that this update better aligns itself with the ongoing evolution of market structure and industry practice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed definition change is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, and to ensure that the term “Trading Platform” is applied consistently and comprehensively to functionally equivalent order-matching venues, regardless of the underlying technology or business model. As noted above, the amended definition is intended to reach any functionally equivalent order-matching execution venue—including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes order flow, as well as decentralized or tokenized order-matching venues. By
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 grounded in the Exchange's efforts to compete more effectively (
Further, the Exchange believes that these changes will not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition, as the revised definition applies uniformly to all market participants that meet the definition of Trading Platform, regardless of their specific business model or the technology employed by the execution venue.
Further, the proposed change to update the Trading Platform definition does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it merely updates the Exchange's definitions to ensure consistency with the evolving technological landscape. Indeed, this proposal ensures that the Exchange's Fee Schedule accurately reflects the current scope of execution venues. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to update the definition of “Trading Platform.” The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Trading Platform” set forth in the Definitions section of its Fee Schedule. The existing definition enumerates three categories of execution venue—a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, and an Electronic Communications Network. The Exchange now seeks to amend this definition to add an additional category—namely, a similar order-matching execution venue or decentralized platform (including blockchain-based or tokenized environments)—so that the term also captures other venues that perform functionally equivalent order-matching and execution. The current and proposed amended definitions are set forth below.
The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, including the increasing use of functionally equivalent order-matching venues that operate outside the three enumerated categories. For example, under the current definition, a platform operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, or an Electronic Communications Network plainly constitutes a Trading Platform and is thus subject to the applicable fees associated with a Trading Platform.
The Exchange notes that the phrase “similar order-matching execution venue” is intended to be construed broadly and is not limited to blockchain-based or tokenized platforms. Rather, it is intended to encompass any functionally equivalent order-matching venue, including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes and/or facilitates execution of client order flow. The parenthetical reference to blockchain-based or tokenized environments is illustrative of the types of emerging venues the amended definition is intended to reach and is not intended to limit the scope of the broader category.
The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity as to the scope of “Trading Platform,” with new and emerging execution technologies in mind. The Exchange notes that this update better aligns itself with the ongoing evolution of market structure and industry practice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed definition change is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, and to ensure that the term “Trading Platform” is applied consistently and comprehensively to functionally equivalent order-matching venues, regardless of the underlying technology or business model. As noted above, the amended definition is intended to reach any functionally equivalent order-matching execution venue—including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes order flow, as well as decentralized or tokenized order-matching venues. By ensuring that similar venues are treated alike, the proposed definition supports the equitable allocation of fees and avoids disparate treatment of functionally equivalent venues that do not meet an existing definition. The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity on the platforms that should be covered under the definition, with new and emerging trading technologies in mind.
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 grounded in the Exchange's efforts to compete more effectively (
Further, the Exchange believes that these changes will not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition, as the revised definition applies uniformly to all market participants that meet the definition of Trading Platform, regardless of their specific business model or the technology employed by the execution venue.
Further, the proposed change to update the Trading Platform definition does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it merely updates the Exchange's definitions to ensure consistency with the evolving technological landscape. Indeed, this proposal ensures that the Exchange's Fee Schedule accurately reflects the current scope of execution venues. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing Partial Cabinet Solution bundle. The description of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles and related fees in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) would be updated accordingly. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution (“PCS”) bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing PCS bundle. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a 4 kW PCS bundle and change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle. The description of the PCS bundles and related fees in the Fee Schedule would be updated accordingly.
The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become operative no later than October 31, 2026. The Exchange will announce the date through a customer notice.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users
The PCS bundles were designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
To respond to Users' increased power needs, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional 4 kW PCS bundle. To differentiate it from the existing 2 kW PCS bundle, the Exchange proposes to label them as Options A and B. Like the existing 2 kW PCS Option A, the proposed Option B would be sized to meet the needs of smaller Users and their current power needs.
At the same time, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” to “Precision Time Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle, to conform the reference to the terminology used elsewhere in the Fee Schedule.
To implement the changes, the Exchange would amend Note 1, in relevant part, as follows (proposed additions italicized):
1. To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) it must purchase only one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; (2) the User and its Affiliates must not currently have a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; and (3) after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, will have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
The Exchange would also amend the Fee Schedule to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference. The amended Fee Schedule would read as follows (proposed deletions bracketed; proposed additions italicized):
The proposed change would apply to all PCS bundles. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Price List is applied uniformly to all Users.
The Exchange expects to obtain at most a handful of new Users as a result of offering the 4 kW PCS bundles. A User, including a User with a 4 kW dedicated cabinet, would be able to convert to the 4 kW PCS bundle if it otherwise met the conditions. The Exchange does not expect to obtain new Users as a result of the other changes.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are reasonable, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing the proposed 4 kW PCS bundles—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
The proposed change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. There would be no ambiguity as to what the language referred to, and so the change is reasonable.
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market participants equally.
The 2 kW PCS bundle was designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. As equipment has evolved, even those with minimal demands need more power to meet the requirements of their hardware, such that even smaller Users may not find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle meets their needs adequately. The proposed 4 kW PCS bundle would be responsive to the evolution of equipment, and so the Exchange believes that its introduction is equitable because it would not force customers to accept a “one-size-fits-all” PCS bundle but would instead permit them to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users would have fewer usable options. This would be a detriment for them, especially for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because only Users that voluntarily select a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged for it. As is true now, 4 kW PCS bundles would be available to all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged the same amount, and be subject to the same restrictions, for that bundle.
The proposed changes to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are not unfairly discriminatory, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle. The Exchange notes that the equipment for the two services is not the same: different cabinets are needed for the 4 kW PCS bundle as compared to the 2 kW PCS bundle.
In addition, the proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” would add clarity. Similarly, the proposed change to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would add clarity and conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would therefore make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The proposed rule changes 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.
The proposed change does not affect competition among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange. The proposed changes would enhance competition by giving smaller Users the option to have a 4 kW PCS bundle to meet their needs. The proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to current or potential Users who might otherwise opt to purchase 4 kW partial cabinets and other co-location services, or 2 kW PCS bundles. It would therefore enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, as they would have more options from which to select. This could be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. At the same time, however, no potential or current User would be obligated to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” and to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would not address competition but rather would make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.10E (“Clearly Erroneous Executions”) in light of the Commission's approval of Overnight Protected Bands for 23/5 Trading. 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 American LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend proposes to amend Rule 7.10E (“Clearly Erroneous Executions”) in light of the Commission's approval of Overnight Protected Bands under the LULD Plan for 23/5 Trading.
In conjunction with the industry's plans for the introduction of trading 23 hours a day, 5 days a week (“23/5 Trading”), the Operating Committee of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (“LULD Plan”) filed proposed Amendment 27 to the LULD Plan, which proposed to establish price band protections during overnight trading hours (“Overnight Price Bands”).
In light of the Commission's approval of these changes to the LULD Plan, the Exchange now proposes several amendments to Rule 7.10E regarding Clearly Erroneous Executions. In general, the rule describes the process a market participant may use to request cancellation of a transaction that was “clearly erroneous.” The current rule's central premise is that if LULD Price Bands under the LULD Plan were available and correct at the time the transaction was executed, the transaction is not eligible for clearly erroneous review. Specifically, Rule 7.10E(c)(1) currently provides that “[i]f the execution time of the transaction(s) under review is during the Core Trading Session, the transaction will not be reviewable as clearly erroneous” except in certain limited circumstances, including when (A) the transaction is in an NMS stock that is not subject to the LULD Plan (
Currently, LULD Price Bands are available only during the Core Trading Session, meaning that the restrictions on clearly erroneous review described above apply only during the Core Trading Session. With the introduction of Overnight Price Bands, the Exchange now proposes to extend the existing restrictions on clearly erroneous review to the period when Overnight Price Bands are in place. This proposed change would be consistent with the Commission's rationale in approving the current version of the rule because it would limit any potential discordance between the LULD mechanism and CEE review in the overnight trading session, providing greater certainty to market participants that trades executed with the Overnight Price Bands will stand and not be broken.
To implement this change, the Exchange proposes to add several definitions to Rule 7.10E(c)(1). First, the Exchange would add that the term “LULD Protected Hours” includes the Core Trading Session and “Overnight Protected Hours” defined in Section VIII of the LULD Plan. Second, the Exchange would define “LULD Price Bands” or “Price Bands” to mean the Price Bands defined in Section V of the LULD Plan (
The Exchange proposes to amend the current first sentence of Rule 7.10E(c)(1) to replace the phrase “Core Trading Session” with “LULD Protected Hours,” to provide that “[i]f the execution time of the transaction(s) under review is during LULD Protected Hours, the transaction will not be reviewable as clearly erroneous . . . .” This change would extend the LULD-based restrictions on clearly erroneous review currently in place during the Core Trading Session to the Overnight Protected Hours.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.10E(c)(1)(B)'s reference to “Percentage Parameter” to incorporate the Percentage Parameter that applies to Overnight Protected Hours. The amended provision would provide for the applicability of clearly erroneous review if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the subject of the clearly erroneous complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference Price by an amount that equals or exceeds the applicable Percentage Parameter defined in Appendix A to the LULD Plan (with respect to the Price Bands that apply during the Core Trading Session) or the “Overnight Percentage Parameter defined in Section VIII of the LULD Plan” (with respect to Overnight Protected Hours).
In addition to these changes, the Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change to Rule 7.10E(c)(1)(A), substituting the term “LULD Plan” for the current text “the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the `Limit Up-Limit Down Plan' or `LULD Plan,')” as the “LULD Plan” would be defined in the proposed revision to Rule 7.10E(c)(1).
As noted above, current Rule 7.10E(c)(1)(A) permits clearly erroneous review even during the Core Trading Session when the transaction in question is in an NMS Stock that is not subject to the LULD Plan,
The heading of Rule 7.10E(c)(2) addresses “[r]eview of transactions occurring during the Early or Late Trading Session or eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(A).” The Exchange proposes to replace the phrase “eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(A)” (which, in the current rule, means transactions executed during the Core Trading Session in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan) with “during LULD Protected Hours in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan.” This proposed language would cover transactions in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan in the Core Trading Session and expand the same treatment to transactions executed in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan during Overnight Protected Hours. As such, the proposed change is not novel.
The Exchange proposes to make the same change everywhere else such language appears in the rule—namely, in the text of paragraphs (c)(2)(A), (c)(2)(B), (c)(2)(C), (c)(2)(D), (d)(3), and (f).
The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to the headings of the table accompanying Rule 7.10E(c)(2)(A). The Exchange proposes to change the heading of the second column from “Core Trading Session Numerical Guidelines for transactions eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(A)” to “Numerical Guidelines for Transactions Executed During the Core Trading Session in NMS Stocks Not Subject to the LULD Plan.” This change would simply replace the shorthand “eligible for review pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(A)” with the fuller description that such transactions are “executed during the Core Trading Session in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan,” and is not a substantive change.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to change the heading of the third column from “Early and Late Trading Session Numerical Guidelines” to “Numerical Guidelines for Transactions Executed During the Early and Late Trading Session or During Overnight Protected Hours in NMS Stocks Not Subject to the LULD Plan.” The proposed change addresses the fact that transactions executed during Overnight Protected Hours in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan are eligible for clearly erroneous review—just as are transactions in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan executed during the Core Trading Sesion—but at the Numerical Guidelines that apply outside of the Core Trading Session.
Together, these proposed changes would extend the eligibility of clearly erroneous review for transactions in NMS Stocks not subject to the LULD Plan that is currently in place during the Core Trading Session to the Overnight Protected Hours, and would apply the Commission's recent approval of Overnight Price Bands to the clearly erroneous executions rule.
The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals, the substance of which are identical to this proposal. The Exchange proposes that this rule change would become operative at the commencement of 23/5 Trading, which is scheduled to commence industry-wide on December 6, 2026.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because it extends the basic premise of the current rule that clearly erroneous review should be generally unavailable any time a transaction is executed within LULD Price Bands at a time the Price Bands were available and correct. Currently, LULD Price Bands are available only during the Core Trading Session, meaning that the restrictions on clearly erroneous review described above apply only during the Core Trading Session. With the introduction of Overnight Price Bands, the Exchange believes that extending such restrictions on clearly erroneous review to the period when Overnight Price Bands are in place would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by enhancing the transparency and consistency of the rule.
The resulting rule would thus extend the LULD-related limits on clearly erroneous review that are applicable in the Core Trading Session to the overnight period. The proposed change would also be consistent with the Commission's rationale in approving the current version of the rule because it would limit any potential discordance between the LULD mechanism and CEE review in the overnight trading session, providing greater certainty to market participants that trades executed with the Overnight Price Bands will stand and not be broken.
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with 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 “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to (i) add MX2 LLC (“MX2”) to fee code RP and (ii) increase the fee assessed under fee code RO. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule applicable to its options platform (“BZX Options”), effective September 1, 2026, to (1) add MX2 to fee code RP
The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to various options exchanges. The Fees Schedule currently lists fee codes and their corresponding transaction fees for certain Customer
The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
The Exchange proposes to amend fee code RP to add applicable Customer orders routed to MX2 LLC (“MX2”), a national securities exchange. The charge assessed per contract for fee code RP remains the same ($0.25) under the proposed rule change. The proposed change results in an assessment of fees that, given the fees of an away options exchange, is in line with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—that is, in a manner that approximates the cost of routing Customer orders to other away options exchanges, based on the general cost of transaction fees assessed by the sub-category of away options exchanges for such orders (as well as the Exchange's Routing Costs). The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that market participants will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Customer orders.
Fee code RO is appended to Non-Customer
The purpose of increasing the fee assessed under fee code RO is to recoup the costs incurred by the Exchange when routing such orders to away options exchanges on behalf of Members. In determining to amend fee code RO, the Exchange took into account the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the Exchange's clearing costs, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs associated with routing orders to an away market. The Exchange uses unaffiliated routing brokers to route orders to the away markets; the costs associated with the use of these services are included in the routing fees specified in the Fee Schedule. The proposed fee is intended to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route Non-Customer orders in non-penny classes to away markets. Routing through the Exchange is optional, and Members may mark their orders as Book Only to avoid routing (and any associated routing fees), or may use another routing venue or broker-dealer. The Exchange further notes that the proposed routing fee is comparable to routing fees assessed by other options exchanges for similar orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MX2 to fee code RP is reasonable because the charge assessed per contract for fee code RP remains the same, and the change is designed to assess routing fees for Customer orders routed to MX2 in a manner consistent with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to fee code RO is reasonable because the proposed fee is designed to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route Non-Customer orders in non-penny classes to away markets, including transaction fees assessed by away markets and the Exchange's clearing, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs. The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it is comparable to routing fees assessed for similar orders on other options exchanges. The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee under fee code RO will apply automatically and uniformly to all Members' Non-Customer orders in non-penny classes that are routed to and executed at an away options exchange. Routing through the Exchange is optional, and no Member is required to route orders through the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to (i) add MX2 LLC (“MX2”) to fee code RP and (ii) increase the fee assessed under fee code RO. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule applicable to its options platform (“EDGX Options”), effective September 1, 2026, to (1) add MX2 to fee code RP
The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to various options exchanges. The Fees Schedule currently lists fee codes and their corresponding transaction fees for certain Customer
The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
The Exchange proposes to amend fee code RP to add applicable Customer orders routed to MX2 LLC (“MX2”), a national securities exchange. The charge assessed per contract for fee code RP remains the same ($0.25) under the proposed rule change. The proposed change results in an assessment of fees that, given the fees of an away options exchange, is in line with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—that is, in a manner that approximates the cost of routing Customer orders to other away options exchanges, based on the general cost of transaction fees assessed by the sub-category of away options exchanges for such orders (as well as the Exchange's Routing Costs). The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that market participants will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Customer orders.
Fee code RO is appended to Non-Customer
The purpose of increasing the fee assessed under fee code RO is to recoup the costs incurred by the Exchange when routing such orders to away options exchanges on behalf of Members. In determining to amend fee code RO, the Exchange took into account the transaction fees assessed by the away markets to which the Exchange routes orders, as well as the
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MX2 to fee code RP is reasonable because the charge assessed per contract for fee code RP remains the same, and the change is designed to assess routing fees for Customer orders routed to MX2 in a manner consistent with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—
The Exchange believes the proposed increase to fee code RO is reasonable because the proposed fee is designed to enable the Exchange to recover the costs it incurs to route Non-Customer orders in non-penny classes to away markets, including transaction fees assessed by away markets and the Exchange's clearing, administrative, regulatory, and technical costs. The Exchange believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it is comparable to routing fees assessed for similar orders on other options exchanges. The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee under fee code RO will apply automatically and uniformly to all Members' Non-Customer orders in non-penny classes that are routed to and executed at an away options exchange. Routing through the Exchange is optional, and no Member is required to route orders through the Exchange.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Securities Exchange Act” or the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 17 CFR 240.19b-4, notice is hereby given that on August 27, 2026, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Recovery Plan (the “Recovery Plan”) and the ICC Wind-Down Plan (the “Wind-Down Plan”) (collectively, the “Plans”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC CDS Clearing Rules
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. 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.
ICC proposes revising the Recovery Plan and the Wind-Down Plan, which serve as plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of ICC necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses, consistent with Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”) Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(ii)
Consistent with the regulations applicable to ICC, the Recovery Plan is designed to establish ICC's actions to maintain its viability as a going concern to address any uncovered credit loss, liquidity shortfall, capital inadequacy, or business, operational or other structural weakness that threatens ICC's viability. The purpose of the Recovery
ICC proposes to amend Section I. ICC proposes updating the terminology used to reference its members throughout the Recovery Plan to distinguish between the existing CDS clearing service and the new Treasury clearing service. ICC proposes to clarify that ICC Clearing Participants (“Clearing Participants” or “CPs”) refer to members in the CDS clearing service and ICC Treasury Participants (“Treasury Participants” or “TPs”) refer to members in the Treasury clearing service.
ICC proposes to amend Section II. ICC proposes to include background on the launch of ICC as a CDS clearinghouse.
ICC proposes changes to Section III. ICC proposes to remove references to certain regulatory guidance that has been withdrawn.
ICC proposes changes to Section IV. ICC proposes a clean-up change in describing CDS Rule 201(c) which sets out the types of entities that may qualify as Clearing Participants. The current Recovery Plan language states that an entity “must be one of the following” to qualify as a Clearing Participant. As amended, the language would state that an entity “may be one of the following” to qualify as a Clearing Participant in order to be consistent with the current language of CDS Rule 201(c).
ICC proposes additional changes in Section IV., including regarding operational capacity, financial responsibility and capital requirements, funding requirements, and collateral management. Such changes generally incorporate reference to the Treasury clearing service and distinguish between the Treasury clearing service and CDS clearing service in accordance with the CDS and Treasury Rules. With respect to financial responsibility and capital requirements, ICC proposes to outline that CDS and Treasury clearing services operate separately in terms of financial resources. The CDS clearing service maintains a separate General Guaranty Fund and calls for and holds margin payments from Clearing Participants independently of margin payments called for in connection with the Treasury clearing service. Regarding funding requirements, ICC proposes to specify acceptable forms of collateral for Initial Margin and Treasury Guaranty Fund contributions for the Treasury clearing service in accordance with Treasury Rule 401 and Schedule 401 to the Treasury Rules. With respect to collateral management, ICC proposes to specify that the Treasury clearing service determines its liquidity needs separately from the CDS clearing service and maintains separate liquidity resources. ICC also proposes to include the ICC eligible collateral for the Treasury clearing service as of March 6, 2026 in accordance with Treasury Rule 401 and Schedule 401 to the Treasury Rules. ICC further proposes to update references throughout the Recovery Plan to distinguish ICC CDS Rules and ICC Treasury Rules.
ICC proposes additional changes in Section IV. with respect to governance structure. ICC proposes to update the Recovery Plan to reflect that ICC has a board-level Board Risk Committee.
ICC proposes additional changes in Section IV. to reflect changes impacting ICC within the past year. Consistent with previously approved changes to the CDS Rules and CDS default management procedures, ICC proposes to remove references to “direct liquidation” as a hedging and liquidation mechanism in the context of managing a defaulting CP's portfolio.
ICC proposes amendments to Section V. With respect to the list of critical services provided to ICC by affiliates, ICC proposes to update the relevant agreement governing those services.
ICC proposes amendments to Section VII. As required by CFTC and SEC regulations,
Furthermore, ICC proposes to amend Section VIII. which describes the recovery tools available to ICC in the event of a stress scenario. With respect to such recovery tools, ICC proposes changes to incorporate reference to the Treasury clearing service and distinguish between the Treasury clearing service and CDS clearing service where appropriate. ICC proposes to clarify that the use of these recovery tools is done separately under the rules of each clearing service. ICC further proposes to clarify that as each of the CDS and Treasury clearing services are designed to be independent with their own separate rulebooks, memberships and default resources, ICC does not expect that a recovery caused by a
ICC also proposes changes to the tools to address liquidity shortfalls in participant default scenarios to incorporate reference to the Treasury clearing service and distinguish between the Treasury clearing service and CDS clearing service where appropriate. ICC proposes to incorporate reference to ICC's Treasury Clearing Service Liquidity Risk Management Framework (“LRMF”) and describe the LRMF's objectives as well as ICC's liquidity waterfall, consistent with the language in the LRMF.
ICC proposes to amend Section IX. As the CDS and Treasury Risk Committees provide for customer participation, ICC proposes to remove a related statement that is no longer current. ICC proposes a terminology update to change a reference from “full tear-up” to “full termination” to be consistent with the language in CDS and Treasury Rules 810, which use “termination” rather than “tear-up” when discussing the termination of clearing. Additionally, ICC proposes revisions to the annual review process for the Recovery Plan. Under the current language, the annual review and material amendments to this plan are presented to the Risk Committee,
In addition to the foregoing proposed changes, ICC proposes general updates to the Recovery Plan to ensure that the information in the Recovery Plan is current and accurate. Namely, the proposed changes ensure that relevant information regarding ICC for the purposes of recovery planning is current with respect to below regarding the CDS clearing service and Treasury clearing service, where available:
• Clearing Participants in Section IV.B.;
• CDS Default Committee—Eligible Clearing Participants in Section IV.B.;
• ICC revenue, volume, and expense data in Section IV.D.;
• ICC personnel and facilities in Section VI.A.;
• ICC CDS In-House Systems in Section VI.A.;
• ICC UST In-House Systems in Section VI.A.;
• identification of ICC's counterparties in the Counterparty Chart in Section VI.B.;
• identification of ICC's contractual agreements in Section VI.C.;
• change in contact information for CFTC and SEC contacts in Section VII.B.;
• ICE Inc. insurance coverage in Section VIII.B.;
• ICE Inc. and ICC balance sheet information in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC dividend payments made in 2025 in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC 2025 transaction and clearing fee revenue in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC 2025 outsourcing fees in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC 2025 compensation data in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC 2025 annual bonus payments in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC lease payments to ICE Inc. in Section VIII.B.;
• ICC projected estimated recovery and wind-down costs in Section X.;
• calculation of ICC's projected 12-month operating expenses in Section X.;
• ICC and ICE Inc. financial information in Section XI.;
• key ICC reports and descriptions for the Treasury clearing service in Section XII;
• ICC glossary of key terms in Appendix A in Section XIII;
• banking institutions and example proportion of holdings in Appendix C in Section XIII;
• ICC stress scenario analysis in Appendix D in Section XIII;
• ICC recovery tool analysis in Appendix E in Section XIII;
• recovery tool analysis applied to each scenario in Appendix F in Section XIII; and
• index of exhibits in Section XIV.
Finally, ICC proposes non-substantive drafting changes and improvements to the Recovery Plan, such as the correction of typographical errors, and the re-numbering of sub-sections to reflect the addition and deletion of sub-sections as described above.
Consistent with the regulations applicable to ICC, the Wind-Down Plan is designed to establish how ICC could be wound-down in an orderly manner. The Wind-Down Plan would be used in the event the recovery actions described in the ICC Recovery Plan failed to preserve ICC's viability as a going concern (and therefore recovery is not possible) and resolution has not been triggered. Furthermore, the Wind-Down Plan may be used in the event ICC makes a business decision to exit all clearing activities. As noted above, the proposed amendments reflect and relate to changes that impacted ICC in the past year, including the expansion of ICC's clearing services to encompass UST securities, additional updates and edits to the Plans intended to promote clarity, streamline, and to ensure that the information provided is current.
ICC proposes to amend Section I. The proposed changes specify that the information provided in the amended Wind-Down Plan is current as of March 6, 2026, unless otherwise stated. ICC also proposes a footnote to acknowledge that the Treasury clearing service is not yet launched. The footnote is intended to provide transparency and clarity, as the Wind-Down Plan incorporates Treasury Clearing Service-specific information that is based on the anticipated launch of the service.
ICC proposes to amend Section II. As described above, ICC proposes updating the terminology used to reference its members throughout the Wind-Down Plan to distinguish between the existing CDS clearing service and the new Treasury clearing service. ICC proposes to clarify that CPs refer to members in the CDS clearing service and TPs refer to members in the Treasury clearing service.
ICC proposes additional changes in Section II. to include background on the launch of ICC as a CDS clearinghouse.
ICC proposes changes to Section III. ICC proposes to remove references to certain regulatory guidance that has been withdrawn.
ICC proposes changes in Section IV. with respect to governance structure. ICC proposes to update the Wind-Down Plan to reflect that ICC has a board-level Board Risk Committee.
ICC proposes amendments to Section V with respect to wind-down stress scenarios. As required by CFTC and SEC regulations,
ICC proposes to amend Section VI. which describes the wind-down options that will be used in the event that the recovery actions described in the Recovery Plan failed to preserve ICC's viability as a going concern and resolution has not been triggered. With respect to such wind-down options, ICC proposes changes to incorporate reference to the Treasury clearing service and distinguish between the Treasury clearing service and CDS clearing service where appropriate. Additionally, ICC proposes amendments to its approach, timeline, resources,
ICC proposes changes to its description of the transfer option to contemplate a transfer of either the CDS clearing service or the Treasury clearing service, as well as a transfer of both services. For example, ICC proposes to specify in Section VI. that ICC may transfer ICC's Treasury clearing service, including open positions to an alternative clearing house. ICC further proposes to clarify that if both CDS and Treasury clearing services will be transferred, ICC anticipates pursuing the relevant processes in parallel, such that the anticipated timeline will not be delayed. In addition, ICC proposes to clarify if only one clearing service will be transferred, ICC would continue to maintain risk, treasury, compliance and operations teams on a business-as-usual basis for the remaining clearing service. With respect to potential impediments or considerations, ICC proposes to note that there may be a limited number of potential recipient clearing houses because such clearing houses would be required to have all appropriate registrations.
ICC proposes changes to its description of the sale option to contemplate the sale of either the CDS clearing service or the Treasury clearing service, as well as the sale of both services. ICC proposes to define the sale option to include the sale of ICC's Treasury clearing activities to another entity. Similarly, ICC proposes to specify that in the case of a sale of both CDS and Treasury clearing activities, ICC anticipates pursuing the relevant processes in parallel, such that the anticipated timeline will not be delayed. With respect to potential impediments or considerations, ICC proposes to clarify that if only one clearing service will be sold, a service provider may prefer to provide transitional services to the recipient clearing house for a specified time period.
ICC proposes changes to its description of the termination option to contemplate a transfer of either the CDS clearing service or the Treasury clearing service, as well as a transfer of both services. ICC proposes to define the termination open to include the termination of open Treasury positions ideally through orderly close out, and if orderly close out is not achieved, through the tear up of open positions. ICC proposes to specify that if only one clearing service will be terminated, ICC will continue to maintain risk, treasury, compliance and operations teams on a business-as-usual basis for the remaining clearing service.
ICC proposes amendments to Section VII. With respect to the list of critical services provided to ICC by affiliates, ICC proposes to update references to the relevant agreement governing those services.
ICC proposes to amend Section VIII., which analyzes ICC's contractual arrangements in the context of continuation of services during wind-down. ICC proposes to incorporate reference to the Treasury clearing service and to distinguish between the Treasury clearing service and the CDS clearing service where appropriate. This includes identifying which arrangements are applicable to each clearing service. ICC also proposes conforming updates to its description of the relevant contractual provisions and to its analysis of the potential impact of such provisions on wind-down implementation. Such updates include the effect of a counterparty's termination of an agreement on a non-impacted clearing service.
ICC proposes to update Section IX, X and XI. ICC proposes updates to Section IX. with respect to its financial resources for wind-down planning. Namely, ICC proposes to specify that it ensures that it is in compliance with all regulatory capital requirements at the entity level in Section IX. ICC proposes to update Section X. with respect to wind-down governance. ICC proposes updates to include the ICC Board Risk Committee in the Wind-Down Plan's governance. Under the current language, the annual review and material amendments to this plan are presented to the Risk Committee,
In addition to the foregoing proposed changes, ICC proposes general updates to the Wind-Down Plan to ensure that the information in the Wind-Down Plan is current and accurate. Namely, the proposed changes ensure that relevant information regarding ICC for the purposes of wind-down planning is current with respect to below regarding
• Clearing Participants in Section IV.A.;
• change in contact information for the SEC and CFTC contacts in Section VI.A.;
• ICC clearing and processing fees in Section VII.;
• ICC personnel and facilities in Section VII.C.;
• ICC CDS In-House Systems in Section VII.C.;
• ICC UST In-House Systems in Section VII.C.;
• identification of ICC's counterparties in the Counterparty Chart VII.D.;
• contractual arrangements chart in Section VIII.;
• financial resources to support wind-down in Section IX.;
• glossary of key terms in Section XI.A;
• banking institutions and example proportion of holdings charts in Section XI.C.;
• ICC stress scenario analysis chart in Section XI.D.; and
• index of exhibits in Section XII.
Finally, ICC proposes non-substantive drafting changes and improvements to the Wind-Down Plan, such as the correction of typographical errors and the re-numbering of sub-sections to reflect the addition and deletion of sub-sections as described above.
ICC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
ICC believes the proposed changes would enhance its ability to effectuate a successful recovery as well as to execute an orderly wind-down by providing updates and additional clarity with respect to ICC's recovery and wind-down processes and procedures. As discussed herein, the proposed revisions ensure that relevant information regarding ICC for recovery and wind-down planning is current and up to date and includes ICC's Treasury clearing service. The Plans would thus promote ICC's ability to continue providing clearing services with as little disruption as possible, and should continuation not be feasible in one or both clearing services, promote ICC's ability to discontinue one or both clearing services in an orderly manner with minimum negative impact to the marketplace and stakeholders. Accordingly, in ICC's view, the proposed rule change is consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The proposed rule changes would also satisfy the relevant requirements of Rule 17ad-22.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(3)(ii)
Rule 17ad-22(e)(15)
The Plans continue to analyze ICC's particular circumstances and risks to ensure that ICC maintains financial resources necessary to implement both Plans and that ICC remains in compliance with all regulatory capital requirements. The Plans include information on the financial resources maintained by ICC for recovery and to support wind-down of one or both clearing services in compliance with relevant regulations and include procedures to follow in case of any shortfall. As such, ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17ad-22(e)(15).
The proposed rule change would also satisfy the requirements of Rule 17ad-26, which broadly covers the requirements for the recovery and orderly wind-down plans of covered clearing agencies.
The Plans continue to establish ICC's actions in the event of recovery or orderly wind-down, and as modified by these proposed changes, include coverage of all the requirements of Rule 17ad-26.
ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to the Plans will apply uniformly across all market participants. The changes are being proposed to promote clarity, streamline, and ensure that the information provided is current in the Plans. ICC does not believe the amendments would affect the costs of clearing or the ability of market participants to access clearing. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would 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.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2026-009 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to amend Exchange Rule 6.5 to eliminate the fee currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review and instead assess a reduced $500 fee when the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel votes to uphold the decision under review. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 6.5, effective September 1, 2026, to eliminate the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review and adopt a reduced $500 fee when the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel votes to uphold the decision under review.
Currently, Exchange Rule 6.5(d)(3) provides that, in connection with a catastrophic error review, if an Official determines that a Catastrophic Error has [sic] occurred, the Trading Permit Holder will be subject to a charge of $5,000. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.5(d)(3) to eliminate that $5,000 charge. In its place, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 6.5(k)(5) and Rule 6.5(l)(5), which provide that if the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel, respectively, votes to uphold the decision made under Rule 6.5, the Exchange will assess a $500 fee against the Trading Permit Holder(s) who initiated the request for appeal. In addition, in instances where the Exchange, on behalf of a Trading Permit Holder, requests a determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any resulting charges through to the relevant Trading Permit Holder. The proposed change is designed to eliminate the fee borne by Trading Permit Holders in connection with the Exchange's initial catastrophic error review and instead apply a fee at the appeal stage of the process. The proposed $500 fee is a nominal administrative charge associated with the appeal process that is substantially
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to Exchange Rule 6.5 to eliminate the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review and to adopt a reduced $500 fee assessed against a Trading Permit Holder who initiates a request for appeal that is upheld by the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel are reasonable. The proposed $500 fee is a nominal administrative charge associated with the appeal process that is substantially lower than the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review, and is designed to discourage the initiation of unfounded appeals. The Exchange notes that the proposed $500 fee is identical to the fee assessed under BZX Rule 20.6 and EDGX Rule 20.6 when the Obvious Error Panel on those exchanges votes to uphold a decision. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed $500 fee will apply uniformly to any Trading Permit Holder(s) who initiate a request for appeal that is upheld by the applicable Panel, and the elimination of the $5,000 charge applies uniformly to all Trading Permit Holders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation 14D (17 CFR 240.14d-1 through 240.14d-11) and Regulation 14E (17 CFR 240.14e-1 through 240.14e-8) and related Schedule 14D-9 (17 CFR 240.14d-101) require information intended to help security holders determine how to respond to tender offers. The information required by Schedule 14D-9 is mandatory, and Schedule 14D-9 filings are publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Schedule 14D-9 is filed once per year by approximately 54 respondents, for a total of approximately 54 responses annually. We estimate that respondents incur 65.14 burden hours per Form 10-K response, for a total annual reporting burden of 3,518 hours (65.14 burden hours per response × 54 responses). We estimate that respondents incur $117,252 cost burden per Schedule 14D-9 response, for a total annual cost burden of $6,331,608 ($117,252 cost burden per response × 54 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.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) will host a public roundtable on Thursday, September 17, 2026, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (ET). The meeting will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9 a.m. (ET). Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
The roundtable will be held in the Auditorium at the SEC's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The SEC will host a public roundtable to discuss preparations for 24-hour trading, including preparedness for a 24-hour market, resiliency in a 24-hour market, and expected impacts and consideration of next steps. The roundtable is open to the public, who must register at this link.
For further information, please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On March 10, 2026, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On May 1, 2026, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to update the definition of “Trading Platform.” The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Trading Platform” set forth in the Definitions section of its Fee Schedule. The existing definition enumerates three categories of execution venue—a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, and an Electronic Communications Network. The Exchange now seeks to amend this definition to add an additional category—namely, a similar order-matching execution venue or decentralized platform (including blockchain-based or tokenized environments)—so that the term also captures other venues that perform functionally equivalent order-matching and execution. The current and proposed amended definitions are set forth below.
The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, including the increasing use of functionally equivalent order-matching venues that operate outside the three enumerated categories. For example, under the current definition, a platform operated as or by a registered
The Exchange notes that the phrase “similar order-matching execution venue” is intended to be construed broadly and is not limited to blockchain-based or tokenized platforms. Rather, it is intended to encompass any functionally equivalent order-matching venue, including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes and/or facilitates execution of client order flow. The parenthetical reference to blockchain-based or tokenized environments is illustrative of the types of emerging venues the amended definition is intended to reach and is not intended to limit the scope of the broader category.
The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity as to the scope of “Trading Platform,” with new and emerging execution technologies in mind. The Exchange notes that this update better aligns itself with the ongoing evolution of market structure and industry practice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed definition change is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, and to ensure that the term “Trading Platform” is applied consistently and comprehensively to functionally equivalent order-matching venues, regardless of the underlying technology or business model. As noted above, the amended definition is intended to reach any functionally equivalent order-matching execution venue—including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes order flow, as well as decentralized or tokenized order-matching venues. By ensuring that similar venues are treated alike, the proposed definition supports the equitable allocation of fees and avoids disparate treatment of functionally equivalent venues that do not meet an existing definition. The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity on the platforms that should be covered under the definition, with new and emerging trading technologies in mind.
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 grounded in the Exchange's efforts to compete more effectively (
Further, the Exchange believes that these changes will not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition, as the revised definition applies uniformly to all market participants that meet the definition of Trading Platform, regardless of their specific business model or the technology employed by the execution venue.
Further, the proposed change to update the Trading Platform definition does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it merely updates the Exchange's definitions to ensure consistency with the evolving technological landscape. Indeed, this proposal ensures that the Exchange's Fee Schedule accurately reflects the current scope of execution venues. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 require clearing agencies to register with the Commission and to meet certain requirements with regard to, among other things, the clearing agency's organization, capacities, and rules. The information is collected from the clearing agency upon the initial application for registration on Form CA-1. Thereafter, information is collected by amendment to the initial Form CA-1 when changes in circumstances that render certain information on Form CA-1 inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete necessitate modification of the information previously provided to the Commission.
The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form CA-1 to: (1) determine whether an applicant meets the standards for registration set forth in Section 17A of the Exchange Act, (2) enforce compliance with the Exchange Act's registration requirement, and (3) provide information about specific registered clearing agencies for compliance and investigatory purposes. Without Rule 17Ab2-1, the Commission could not perform these duties as statutorily required.
The Commission staff estimates that the Commission receives approximately three new Form CA-1 applications, and approximately ten amendments to existing Forms CA-1, per year pursuant to Rule 17Ab2-1. Recently, Commission staff has seen an increase in the complexity and length of Form CA-1 applications received, likely due to new market developments such as cloud computing, cybersecurity, sponsored clearing, Distributed Ledger Technology, and Treasury clearing products. As such, the Commission staff estimates that the Form CA-1 would take approximately 651 hours to complete and submit for approval, and amending an existing Form CA-1 would take approximately 60 hours to complete and submit. Consequently, the aggregate annual burden associated with compliance with Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 is approximately 2553 hours.
The Commission staff estimates that, in order to complete a new Form CA-1, 611 hours of a Lawyer's time (estimated at $744 per hour)
The external costs associated with work on Form CA-1 include fees charged by outside lawyers and accountants to assist the applicant or registrant to collect and prepare the information sought by the form (though such consultations are not required by the Commission). The staff estimates that these external costs are more likely when novel questions arise. Recently, the staff has seen an increase in the number of novel issues presented in applications and amendments. The staff estimates an annual external cost of 60 hours of an external Lawyer's time (estimated at $498 per hour) and 10 hours of an external Accountant's time (estimated at $241 per hour) for preparation of a Form CA-1 application, resulting in an external cost of $32,290 per year per applicant, with an aggregate external cost of approximately $96,870
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing Partial Cabinet Solution bundle. The description of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles and related fees in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) would be updated accordingly. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution (“PCS”) bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing PCS bundle. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a 4 kW PCS bundle and change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle. The description of the PCS bundles and related fees in the Fee Schedule would be updated accordingly.
The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become operative no later than October 31, 2026. The Exchange will announce the date through a customer notice.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users
The PCS bundles were designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
To respond to Users' increased power needs, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional 4 kW PCS bundle. To differentiate it from the existing 2 kW PCS bundle, the Exchange proposes to label them as Options A and B. Like the existing 2 kW PCS Option A, the proposed Option B would be sized to meet the needs of smaller Users and their current power needs.
At the same time, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” to “Precision Time Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle, to conform the
To implement the changes, the Exchange would amend Note 1, in relevant part, as follows (proposed additions italicized):
1. To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) it must purchase only one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; (2) the User and its Affiliates must not currently have a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; and (3) after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, will have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
The Exchange would also amend the Fee Schedule to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference. The amended Fee Schedule would read as follows (proposed deletions bracketed; proposed additions italicized):
The proposed change would apply to all PCS bundles. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Price List is applied uniformly to all Users.
The Exchange expects to obtain at most a handful of new Users as a result of offering the 4 kW PCS bundles. A User, including a User with a 4 kW dedicated cabinet, would be able to convert to the 4 kW PCS bundle if it otherwise met the conditions. The Exchange does not expect to obtain new Users as a result of the other changes.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are reasonable, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing the proposed 4 kW PCS bundles—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
The proposed change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. There would be no ambiguity as to what the language referred to, and so the change is reasonable.
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market participants equally.
The 2 kW PCS bundle was designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. As equipment has evolved, even those with minimal demands need more power to meet the requirements of their hardware, such that even smaller Users may not find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle meets their needs adequately. The proposed 4 kW PCS bundle would be responsive to the evolution of equipment, and so the Exchange believes that its introduction is equitable because it would not force customers to accept a “one-size-fits-all” PCS bundle but would instead permit them to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users would have fewer usable options. This would be a detriment for them, especially for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because only Users that voluntarily select a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged for it. As is true now, 4 kW PCS bundles would be available to all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged the same amount, and be subject to the same restrictions, for that bundle.
The proposed changes to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are not unfairly discriminatory, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle. The Exchange notes that the equipment for the two services is not the same: different cabinets are needed for the 4 kW PCS bundle as compared to the 2 kW PCS bundle.
In addition, the proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” would add clarity. Similarly, the proposed change to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would add clarity and conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would therefore make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The proposed rule changes 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.
The proposed change does not affect competition among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange. The proposed changes would enhance competition by giving smaller Users the option to have a 4 kW PCS bundle to meet their needs. The proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to current or potential Users who might otherwise opt to purchase 4 kW partial cabinets and other co-location services, or 2 kW PCS bundles. It would therefore enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, as they would have more options from which to select. This could be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. At the same time, however, no potential or current User would be obligated to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” and to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would not address competition but rather would make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form 20-F (17 CFR 249.220f) is used by foreign private issuers to register securities pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and to file annual or transition reports pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. The information collected by Form 20-F is intended to provide investors with material information needed to make informed investment decisions. The information collected by Form 20-F is mandatory, and Form 20-F filings are publicly available on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. We estimate that Form 20-F is filed once per year by approximately 1,029 respondents, for a total of approximately 1,029 responses annually. We estimate that respondents incur 660.89 burden hours per Form 20-F response, for a total annual reporting burden of 680,056 hours (660.89 hours per response × 1,029 responses). We estimate that respondents incur $1,194,666.92 cost burden per Form 20-F, for a total annual cost of $1,229,312,261 ($1,194,666.92 cost per response × 1,029 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.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and Exchange Rule 6.5 to (i) add MX2 LLC (“MX2”) to fee code RD, (ii) delete the Catastrophic Error Review Fee from the Fees Schedule, and (iii) amend Exchange Rule 6.5 to eliminate the fee currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review and instead assess a reduced $500 fee when the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel votes to uphold the decision under review. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and Exchange Rule 6.5, effective September 1, 2026, to (1) add MX2 to fee code RD
The Exchange assesses fees in connection with orders routed away to various options exchanges. The Fees Schedule currently lists fee codes and their corresponding transaction fees for certain Customer
The Exchange's current approach to routing fees is to set forth in a simple manner certain sub-categories of fees that approximate the cost of routing to other options exchanges based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (
The Exchange proposes to amend fee code RD to add applicable Customer orders routed to MX2, a national securities exchange. The charge assessed per contract for fee code RD remains the same ($0.25) under the proposed rule change. The proposed change results in an assessment of fees that, given the fees of an away options exchange, is in line with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—that is, in a manner that approximates the cost of routing Customer orders to other away options exchanges, based on the general cost of transaction fees assessed by the sub-category of away options exchanges for such orders (as well as the Exchange's Routing Costs). The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is optional and that market participants will continue to be able to choose where to route applicable Customer orders.
The Miscellaneous section of the Fees Schedule currently includes a “Catastrophic Error Review Fee” of $5,000, which by its terms is assessed only if, after a request for review with the Exchange of a potential Catastrophic Error, an Official determines that a Catastrophic Error has occurred. The substance of this fee is set forth in
Currently, Exchange Rule 6.5(d)(3) provides that, in connection with a catastrophic error review, if an Official determines that a Catastrophic Error has [sic] occurred, the Trading Permit Holder will be subject to a charge of $5,000. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.5(d)(3) to eliminate that $5,000 charge. In its place, the Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 6.5(k)(5) and Rule 6.5(l)(5), which provide that if the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel, respectively, votes to uphold the decision made under Rule 6.5, the Exchange will assess a $500 fee against the Trading Permit Holder(s) who initiated the request for appeal. In addition, in instances where the Exchange, on behalf of a Trading Permit Holder, requests a determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any resulting charges through to the relevant Trading Permit Holder. The proposed change is designed to eliminate the fee borne by Trading Permit Holders in connection with the Exchange's initial error review and instead apply a fee at the appeal stage of the process. The proposed $500 fee is a nominal administrative charge associated with the appeal process that is substantially lower than the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review, and is designed to discourage the initiation of unfounded appeals. The proposed $500 fee is identical to the fee assessed under Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) Rule 20.6 and EDGX Rule 20.6 when the Obvious Error Panel on those exchanges votes to uphold a decision; the Exchange notes that BZX and EDGX utilize a single Obvious Error Panel for appeals, whereas the Exchange maintains separate Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error Panels.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to add MX2 to fee code RD is reasonable because the charge assessed per contract for fee code RD remains the same, and the change is designed to assess routing fees for Customer orders routed to MX2 in a manner consistent with the Exchange's current approach to routing fees—
The Exchange believes the proposed deletion of the Catastrophic Error Review Fee from the Miscellaneous section of the Fees Schedule is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The deletion is administrative and is intended to avoid duplication and potential confusion between the Fees Schedule and Exchange Rule 6.5. The substance of the fee applicable in connection with the Exchange's error-review process is, and will continue to be, addressed in Rule 6.5, as proposed to be amended.
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to Exchange Rule 6.5 to eliminate the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review and to adopt a reduced $500 fee assessed against a Trading Permit Holder who initiates a request for appeal that is upheld by the Obvious Error Panel or Catastrophic Error Panel are reasonable. The proposed $500 fee is a nominal administrative charge associated with the appeal process that is substantially lower than the $5,000 charge currently applicable in connection with a catastrophic error review, and is designed to discourage the initiation of unfounded appeals. The Exchange notes that the proposed $500 fee is identical to the fee assessed under BZX Rule 20.6 and EDGX Rule 20.6 when the Obvious Error Panel on those exchanges votes to uphold a decision. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed $500 fee will apply uniformly to any Trading Permit Holder(s) who initiate a request for appeal that is upheld by the applicable Panel, and the elimination of the $5,000 charge applies uniformly to all Trading Permit Holders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
SR-CBOE-2026-076 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section III.B. (Port Fees) to propose a limit on the number of SAIL Order Entry Ports that a Participant may be credentialed to use in a month and add language clarifying that the Exchange currently offers two types of SAIL Ports. The Exchange is also proposing to make certain technical and non-substantive changes within the Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section III.B. (Port Fees) of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section III.B.2. (SAIL) of the Fee Schedule to propose a limit on the number of SAIL Order Entry Ports that a Participant may be credentialed to use in a month. The Exchange notes that the proposed limitation is similar to an existing limitation in place at another options exchange.
Currently, BOX assesses monthly SOLA® Access Information Language (“SAIL”) Port
At this time, the Exchange proposes to limit a Participant to no more than 200 SAIL Order Entry Ports per month.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make a few technical edits to the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section II. C. (Options Regulatory Fee) to remove obsolete text regarding an ORF rate that is no longer in effect, to amend III. (Technology Fees) to add the word “Section” to the heading for consistency with the other section headings within the Fee Schedule, to correct an internal cross reference within current endnote 36, and to renumber certain endnotes within the Fee Schedule to conform with the changes proposed herein.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to limit a Participant to no more than 200 SAIL Order Entry Ports per month is consistent with the Act because it will allow the Exchange to ensure rational and efficient use of resources in its overall connectivity management. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will further the purposes of the Act by providing an additional means to the Exchange for managing its finite resources, as no exchange has unlimited capacity. The proposed limit on SAIL Order Entry Ports is being proposed in order to manage capacity and resources is designed to assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, as it ensures that the Exchange is utilizing its resources in an effective and efficient manner.
The Exchange utilizes ports as a secure method for Participants to submit orders and quotes into the Trading System and for the Exchange to send messages related to those orders and quotes to Participants. Only approved Participants may utilize a SAIL Order Entry Port. Once approved, Participants may be credentialed to use SAIL Order Entry Ports to submit orders into the Exchange. While a Participant may elect to obtain multiple SAIL Order Entry Ports for business purposes, in order to submit orders a Participant is only required to connect to one port and can choose between either FIX or SAIL. In the event a Participant were to reach the proposed limit of 200 SAIL Order Entry Ports, such Participant would have the option to be credentialed for additional FIX Ports for order entry. The Exchange notes that, generally, there are no current limitations on the number of FIX Ports that a Participant may be credentialed for per month. In order to properly regulate its Participants and secure the trading environment, the Exchange has taken measures to ensure access is monitored and maintained with various controls that will protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange ensures that information security safeguards, upgrades, and general port management are in effect for all SAIL Order Entry Ports regardless of whether the SAIL Order Entry Port is actively in use. As a result of these efforts, the Exchange incurs costs to manage and maintain its SAIL Order Entry Ports and the secure environment surrounding its platform.
The Exchange's proposal is intended to assist the Exchange in continuing to govern its connectivity management in a reasonable manner while protecting investors and the general public by encouraging the efficient and effective use of the Exchange's resources with the
The Exchange believes further that adding language to Section III.B.2. clarifying that the Exchange currently offers two types of SAIL Ports, Order Entry and Market Making, is consistent with the Act because the proposed change will provide greater clarity to market participants regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that this additional detail relating to its current SAIL Port offerings will reduce the potential for investor confusion and make its existing fees more clear.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to remove obsolete text regarding an ORF rate that is no longer in effect, to add the word “Section” to existing section heading III. (Technology Fees) for consistency with the other section headings within the Fee Schedule, to correct an internal cross reference within current endnote 36, and to renumber certain endnotes within the Fee Schedule to conform with the changes proposed herein. The Exchange believes that these proposed technical and non-substantive changes will promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change will provide greater clarity to market participants regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule. It is in the public interest for the Exchange's Fee Schedule to be clear and accurate so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address competitive issues and instead is being proposed to assist with the maintenance of a fair and orderly market by providing the Exchange with the ability govern its connectivity management in a reasonable manner and to encourage the efficient and rational use of the Exchange's finite resources. The Exchange also notes that the proposed limit is similar to an existing limitation in place at another options exchange.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposed technical and clarifying changes will have any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition because these changes will apply equally to all Participants and are intended to provide greater clarity to market participants regarding the Exchange's Fee Schedule to reduce potential investor confusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days 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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under 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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Sapphire Options Exchange Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to: (1) increase the per contract fee assessed to Floor Market Makers for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes that trade against all other origins; and (2) increase the per contract Floor Broker Breakup Credit for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes (all terms defined below).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to: (1) increase the per contract fee assessed to Floor Market Makers
The Exchange assesses fees for transactions on the Trading Floor
The Exchange proposes to amend the table of QFO and cQFO fees and rebates in section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule to increase the fee assessed to Floor Market Makers for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes that trade against all other origins. Currently, the Exchange assesses Floor Market Makers a fee of $0.50 per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes that trade against all other origins. The Exchange now proposes to assess Floor Market Makers a fee of $0.94 per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes that trade against all other origins. The purpose of this change is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange believes that even with the proposed increased fee, the Exchange's transaction fees for Floor Market Makers will remain competitive with the fees assessed by other equity options exchanges that offer trading floors for transactions by their market makers in non-penny classes when trading against all other origins.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the table of QFO and cQFO fees and rebates in section 1)c)i) of the Fee Schedule to increase the per contract Floor Broker Breakup Credit for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes. Currently, the Exchange provides a Floor Broker Breakup Credit of ($0.20) per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in SPY/QQQ/IWM, Penny classes (excluding SPY/QQQ/IWM), and non-Penny classes. The Exchange now proposes to increase the Floor Broker Breakup Credit to ($0.25) per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes. The purpose of this change is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange believes this change may encourage additional Floor Broker liquidity in non-Penny Classes. Additional liquidity in non-Penny classes may benefit all market participants because it will attract additional liquidity to the Exchange by providing more trading opportunities. Further, additional liquidity helps contribute to a robust trading environment on the Exchange's Trading Floor, particularly as it continues to ramp up operations, having launched only a year ago.
The proposed changes are effective beginning September 1, 2026.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposal to amend the Floor Market Maker origin to increase the fee to $0.94 per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes is reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory because, even with the proposed increase, the Exchange believes the proposed fee will not discourage Floor Market Maker order flow. The Exchange notes that even with the proposed increase to the Floor Market Maker fee for transactions in non-Penny classes proposed herein, the Exchange's proposed fee of $0.94 per contract for the Floor Market Maker origin in non-Penny classes remains competitive with, and lower than (in at least one instance), the fee charged by other equity options exchanges to their floor market makers for transactions in non-penny classes.
The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the Floor Broker Breakup Credit to ($0.25) per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes this change may encourage additional Floor Broker liquidity in non-Penny Classes. The Exchange believes additional liquidity in non-Penny classes, to the extent the proposed change accomplishes this goal, may benefit all Floor Participants
The Exchange believes the Floor Broker Breakup Credit is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes do not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because the changes are to remain competitive with other options exchanges that offer a trading floor. The Exchange believes the proposed changes will help the Exchange remain competitive in order to be able to provide market participants with another choice of where to execute such floor transactions. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges that offer trading floors. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees or rebates in response to this proposal, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee and rebate changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is limited.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed change to amend the Floor Market Maker origin to increase the fee to $0.94 per contract for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes will not discourage Floor Market Maker order flow. This is because even with the change, the Exchange's proposed fee of $0.94 per contract for the Floor Market Maker origin in non-Penny classes remains competitive with, and lower than (in at least one instance), the fee charged by other equity options exchanges to their floor market makers for transactions in non-penny classes.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to increase the Floor Broker Breakup Credit for QFO and cQFO transactions in non-Penny classes will encourage the submission of additional non-Penny class liquidity to a public exchange's Trading Floor, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all Floor Participants, especially as the Trading Floor continues to ramp up operations since it launched in September 2025. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to update the definition of “Trading Platform.” The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “Trading Platform” set forth in the Definitions section of its Fee Schedule. The existing definition enumerates three categories of execution venue—a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, and an Electronic Communications Network. The Exchange now seeks to amend this definition to add an additional category—namely, a similar order-matching execution venue or decentralized platform (including blockchain-based or tokenized environments)—so that the term also captures other venues that perform functionally equivalent order-matching and execution. The current and proposed amended definitions are set forth below.
The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, including the increasing use of functionally equivalent order-matching venues that operate outside the three enumerated categories. For example, under the current definition, a platform operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange, an Alternative Trading System, or an Electronic Communications Network plainly constitutes a Trading Platform and is thus subject to the applicable fees associated with a Trading Platform.
The Exchange notes that the phrase “similar order-matching execution venue” is intended to be construed broadly and is not limited to blockchain-based or tokenized platforms. Rather, it is intended to encompass any functionally equivalent order-matching venue, including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes and/or facilitates execution of client order flow. The parenthetical reference to blockchain-based or tokenized environments is illustrative of the types of emerging venues the amended definition is intended to reach and is not intended to limit the scope of the broader category.
The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity as to the scope of “Trading Platform,” with new and emerging execution technologies in mind. The Exchange notes that this update better aligns itself with the ongoing evolution
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed definition change is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The change is intended to capture changes in the evolving landscape of market structure and trading technology, and to ensure that the term “Trading Platform” is applied consistently and comprehensively to functionally equivalent order-matching venues, regardless of the underlying technology or business model. As noted above, the amended definition is intended to reach any functionally equivalent order-matching execution venue—including, for example, a single-dealer platform that internalizes order flow, as well as decentralized or tokenized order-matching venues. By ensuring that similar venues are treated alike, the proposed definition supports the equitable allocation of fees and avoids disparate treatment of functionally equivalent venues that do not meet an existing definition. The intent of this revised definition is not to introduce a new or novel concept; it is instead intended to provide further clarity on the platforms that should be covered under the definition, with new and emerging trading technologies in mind.
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 grounded in the Exchange's efforts to compete more effectively (
Further, the Exchange believes that these changes will not cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition, as the revised definition applies uniformly to all market participants that meet the definition of Trading Platform, regardless of their specific business model or the technology employed by the execution venue.
Further, the proposed change to update the Trading Platform definition does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it merely updates the Exchange's definitions to ensure consistency with the evolving technological landscape. Indeed, this proposal ensures that the Exchange's Fee Schedule accurately reflects the current scope of execution venues. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1 995 (44 U.S.C.§ 3501
Section 15(b)(8) of the Act requires any broker or dealer registered with the Commission to become a member of a registered national securities association (“Association”) unless the broker or dealer effects transactions in securities solely on an exchange of which it is a member. This statutory provision sets forth a complementary self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) oversight structure pursuant to which exchange SROs historically have overseen their own exchanges and The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (the only Association currently) historically has overseen cross-exchange and off-exchange securities trading activity.
Specifically, Rule 15b9-1, as amended, permits an exemption from Association membership only where a broker or dealer that does not carry customer accounts effects securities transactions otherwise than on a national securities exchange of which it is a member that: (1) result solely from orders that are routed by a national securities exchange of which the broker or dealer is a member to comply with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan; or (2) are solely for the purpose of executing the stock leg of a stock-option order (“stock-option order exemption”).
For purposes of relying on the stock-option order exemption provided by Rule 15b9-1(c)(2), a broker or dealer must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure and demonstrate that such transactions are solely for the purpose of executing the stock leg of a stock-option order. The broker or dealer is required to preserve a copy of its policies and procedures in a manner consistent with 17 CFR 240.17a-4 until three years after the date the policies and procedures are replaced with updated policies and procedures. These requirements associated with the stock-option order exemption constitute “collection of information requirements” within the meaning of the PRA.
The collection of information is designed to provide the Commission with enhanced oversight capabilities, consistent with the public interest and protection of investors, by requiring written policies and procedures in connection with the stock-option exemption in paragraph (c)(2) of the amended rule. This requirement helps facilitate exchange SRO supervision of brokers and dealers relying on the stock-option order exemption by providing an efficient and effective way for the relevant options exchange to assess its members' compliance with the terms of the exemption, as set forth in amended Rule 15b9-1.
The Commission estimates that the total initial reporting burden for those broker-dealers that may rely upon the stock-option order exemption provided for under Rule 15b9-1 would be approximately 8.01 hours per year (annualized over a three-year period) and the total ongoing reporting burden would be approximately 144 hours per year. The Commission estimates that 3 non-FINRA brokers or dealers would rely on the stock-option order exemption.
The Commission estimates that it would take a broker or dealer approximately 8 hours to establish written policies and procedures as required under Rule 15b9-1.
The Commission estimates that the ongoing burden of maintaining and enforcing such policies and procedures, and ensuring that such policies and procedures are reasonably designed to ensure and demonstrate that such transactions are solely for the purpose of executing the stock leg of a stock-option order, would be approximately 48 hours for each broker or dealer per year.
Based on an estimated annual burden of 48 hours per broker or dealer, the Commission estimates that the aggregate, ongoing burden to maintain and enforce written policies and procedures as required under Rule 15b9-1 would be 144 hours per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
The public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing Partial Cabinet Solution bundle. The description of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles and related fees in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) would be updated accordingly. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution (“PCS”) bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing PCS bundle. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a 4 kW PCS bundle and change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle. The description of the PCS bundles and related fees in the Fee Schedule would be updated accordingly.
The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become operative no later than October 31, 2026. The Exchange will announce the date through a customer notice.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users
The PCS bundles were designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
To respond to Users' increased power needs, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional 4 kW PCS bundle. To differentiate it from the existing 2 kW PCS bundle, the Exchange proposes to label them as Options A and B. Like the existing 2 kW PCS Option A, the proposed Option B would be sized to meet the needs of smaller Users and their current power needs.
At the same time, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” to “Precision Time Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle, to conform the reference to the terminology used elsewhere in the Fee Schedule.
To implement the changes, the Exchange would amend Note 1, in relevant part, as follows (proposed additions italicized):
1. To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) it must purchase only one Partial Cabinet
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
The Exchange would also amend the Fee Schedule to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference. The amended Fee Schedule would read as follows (proposed deletions bracketed; proposed additions italicized):
The proposed change would apply to all PCS bundles. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service, including PCS bundles, is completely voluntary and the Price List is applied uniformly to all Users.
The Exchange expects to obtain at most a handful of new Users as a result of offering the 4 kW PCS bundles. A User, including a User with a 4 kW dedicated cabinet, would be able to convert to the 4 kW PCS bundle if it otherwise met the conditions. The Exchange does not expect to obtain new Users as a result of the other changes.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are reasonable, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing the proposed 4 kW PCS bundles—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
The proposed change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. There would be no ambiguity as to what the language referred to, and so the change is reasonable.
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market participants equally.
The 2 kW PCS bundle was designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. As equipment has evolved, even those with minimal demands need more power to meet the requirements of their hardware, such that even smaller Users may not find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle meets their needs adequately. The proposed 4 kW PCS bundle would be responsive to the evolution of equipment, and so the Exchange believes that its introduction is equitable because it would not force customers to accept a “one-size-fits-all” PCS bundle but would instead permit them to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users would have fewer usable options. This would be a detriment for them, especially for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because only Users that voluntarily select a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged for it. As is true now, 4 kW PCS bundles would be available to all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged the same amount, and be subject to the same restrictions, for that bundle.
The proposed changes to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are not unfairly discriminatory, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle. The Exchange notes that the equipment for the two services is not the same: different cabinets are needed for the 4 kW PCS bundle as compared to the 2 kW PCS bundle.
In addition, the proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” would add clarity. Similarly, the proposed change to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would add clarity and conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would therefore make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The proposed rule changes 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.
The proposed change does not affect competition among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange. The proposed changes would enhance competition by giving smaller Users the option to have a 4 kW PCS bundle to meet their needs. The proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to current or potential Users who might otherwise opt to purchase 4 kW partial cabinets and other co-location services, or 2 kW PCS bundles. It would therefore enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, as they would have more options from which to select. This could be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. At the same time, however, no potential or current User would be obligated to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
The proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” and to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would not address competition but rather would make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2026-89 and should be submitted on or before October 5, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing Partial Cabinet Solution bundle. The description of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles and related fees in the Connectivity Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) would be updated accordingly. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to add a new Partial Cabinet Solution (“PCS”) bundle as part of its co-location services and change the wording in the existing PCS bundle. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a 4 kW PCS bundle and change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle. The description of the PCS bundles and related fees in the Fee Schedule would be updated accordingly.
The Exchange expects that the proposed rule change would become operative no later than October 31, 2026. The Exchange will announce the date through a customer notice.
Currently, the Exchange offers Users
The PCS bundles were designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
To respond to Users' increased power needs, the Exchange proposes to offer an additional 4 kW PCS bundle. To differentiate it from the existing 2 kW PCS bundle, the Exchange proposes to label them as Options A and B. Like the existing 2 kW PCS Option A, the proposed Option B would be sized to meet the needs of smaller Users and their current power needs.
At the same time, the Exchange proposes to change the reference to “Precision Timing Protocol” to “Precision Time Protocol” in the existing PCS bundle, to conform the reference to the terminology used elsewhere in the Fee Schedule.
To implement the changes, the Exchange would amend Note 1, in relevant part, as follows (proposed additions italicized):
1. To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) it must purchase only one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; (2) the User and its Affiliates must not currently have a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; and (3) after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, will have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW
The Exchange would also amend the Fee Schedule to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference. The amended Fee Schedule would read as follows (proposed deletions bracketed; proposed additions italicized):
The proposed change would apply to all PCS bundles. The proposed change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally.
Users that require other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross connects could still request them. As is currently the
The Exchange expects to obtain at most a handful of new Users as a result of offering the 4 kW PCS bundles. A User, including a User with a 4 kW dedicated cabinet, would be able to convert to the 4 kW PCS bundle if it otherwise met the conditions. The Exchange does not expect to obtain new Users as a result of the other changes.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are reasonable, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that it owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing the proposed 4 kW PCS bundles—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
The proposed change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. There would be no ambiguity as to what the language referred to, and so the change is reasonable.
For these reasons, the proposed change is reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between market participants. Rather, it would apply to all market participants equally.
The 2 kW PCS bundle was designed to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. As equipment has evolved, even those with minimal demands need more power to meet the requirements of their hardware, such that even smaller Users may not find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle meets their needs adequately. The proposed 4 kW PCS bundle would be responsive to the evolution of equipment, and so the Exchange believes that its introduction is equitable because it would not force customers to accept a “one-size-fits-all” PCS bundle but would instead permit them to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
Without this proposed rule change, potential Users would have fewer usable options. This would be a detriment for them, especially for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitable because only Users that voluntarily select a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged for it. As is true now, 4 kW PCS bundles would be available to all Users on an equal basis, and all Users that voluntarily choose to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle would be charged the same amount, and be subject to the same restrictions, for that bundle.
The proposed changes to label the 2 kW PCS bundle as Option A, add the new proposed Option B and make the change to the “Precision Timing Protocol” reference would add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to offer an option to smaller Users that find the existing 2 kW PCS bundle inadequate to meet their needs but otherwise meet the requirements. The addition of a 4 kW PCS bundle would permit current or potential Users to tailor their service selection and fees to meet their own individual business models.
The fees proposed for the new 4 kW PCS bundle are not unfairly discriminatory, as they are comparable to the fees charged for the 2 kW PCS bundle. Indeed, the monthly charge for the 4 kW PCS bundle would be lower per kW than the existing charge for the 2 kW PCS bundle. The Exchange notes that the equipment for the two services is not the same: different cabinets are needed for the 4 kW PCS bundle as compared to the 2 kW PCS bundle.
In addition, the proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” would add clarity. Similarly, the proposed change to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would add clarity and conform the reference to the existing references elsewhere in the Fee Schedule. These proposed changes would therefore make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements, terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
The proposed rule changes 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.
The proposed change does not affect competition among national securities exchanges or among members of the Exchange. The proposed changes would enhance competition by giving smaller Users the option to have a 4 kW PCS bundle to meet their needs. The proposed change may make PCS bundles more attractive to current or potential Users who might otherwise opt to purchase 4 kW partial cabinets and other co-location services, or 2 kW PCS bundles. It would therefore enhance the competitive environment for potential Users, as they would have more options from which to select. This could be especially beneficial for potential Users with minimal power or cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome. At the same time, however, no potential or current User would be obligated to purchase a 4 kW PCS bundle.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges and other vendors offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The proposed changes to add “Option A” and “Option B” and to amend the “Precision Timing Protocol” language would not address competition but rather would make the Fee Schedule more transparent and reduce any potential ambiguity.
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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
SR-NYSEAMER-2026-77 on the subject line.
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This notice provides an updated list of requests received by the U. S. Small Business Administration to make a disaster declaration for a state, territory, or tribe. The published list complies with a directive in the explanatory statement of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Public Law 119-75.
Issued on September 10, 2026.
For further information contact: Eric Wall, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6739.
Notice is hereby given as of August 31, 2026, the following requests have been made to the U.S. Small Business Administration in Fiscal Year 2026 to declare a disaster.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the state of Texas dated September 10, 2026.
Issued on September 10, 2026.
Shaquille Lewis, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21859B and for economic injury is 218600.
The states which received an SBA Administrative declaration are Texas.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the state of UTAH dated September 9, 2026.
Issued on September 9, 2026.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 218556 and for economic injury is 218560.
The states which received an SBA Administrative declaration are Nevada, Utah.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the state of South Dakota (FEMA-4938-DR), dated September 1, 2026.
Issued on September 1, 2026.
Shaquille Lewis, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 1, 2026, Private Non-Profit organizations providing essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 21857B and for economic injury is 218580.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Texas (FEMA-4935-DR), dated September 1, 2026.
Issued on September 9, 2026.
Shaquille Lewis, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of TEXAS, dated September 1, 2026 is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning July 12, 2026 and continuing through August 4, 2026.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4933-DR), dated August 25, 2026.
Issued on September 9, 2026.
Milton Murphy, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Indiana, dated August 25, 2026 is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning August 11, 2026 and continuing through August 24, 2026.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4933-DR), dated August 25, 2026.
Issued on September 9, 2026.
Milton Murphy, Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana, dated August 25, 2026, is hereby amended to update the incident period for this disaster as beginning August 11, 2026 and continuing through August 24, 2026.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), through the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), publishes the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE Report) each year. USTR invites comments to assist it and the TPSC in identifying significant foreign barriers to, or distortions of, U.S. exports of goods and services and U.S. foreign direct investment for inclusion in the NTE Report. USTR also will consider responses to this notice as part of the annual review of the operation and effectiveness of all U.S. trade agreements regarding telecommunications products and services that are in force with respect to the United States.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Mark A. DiPlacido, Chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, at
Section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2241), requires USTR annually to publish the NTE Report, which sets out an inventory of significant foreign barriers to, or distortions of, U.S. exports of goods and services, including agricultural commodities and U.S. intellectual property; foreign direct investment by U.S. persons, especially if such investment has implications for trade in goods or services; and U.S. electronic commerce. The inventory facilitates U.S. negotiations aimed at reducing or eliminating these barriers and is a valuable tool in enforcing U.S. trade laws and agreements, ensuring trade is fair and reciprocal, and promoting U.S. economic and security interests. You can find the 2026 NTE Report on USTR's website at
To assist USTR in preparing the NTE Report, commenters should submit information related to one or more of the following categories of foreign trade barriers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Please provide, if available, the titles of relevant laws or measures and a description of the concerns with which the laws or measures relate to the significant foreign barriers or distortions identified. Commenters should place particular emphasis on any practices that may violate U.S. trade agreements. USTR also is interested in receiving new or updated information pertinent to the barriers covered in the 2026 NTE Report in addition to information on new barriers. If USTR does not include in the 2027 NTE Report information that it receives pursuant to this notice, it will maintain the information for potential use in future discussions or negotiations with trading partners.
Commenters should submit information related to one or more of the following export markets to be covered in the report: Algeria, Angola, the Arab League, Argentina, Australia, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, the European Union, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Commenters may submit information related to significant barriers or distortions in export markets other than those listed in this paragraph.
In addition, Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 3106) (Section 1377) requires USTR annually to review the operation and effectiveness of U.S. telecommunications trade agreements that are in force with respect to the United States. The purpose of the review is to determine whether any foreign government that is a party to one of those agreements is failing to comply with that government's obligations or is otherwise denying, within the context of a relevant agreement, “mutually advantageous market opportunities” to U.S. telecommunications products or services suppliers. USTR will consider responses to this notice in the review called for in Section 1377 and highlight both ongoing and emerging barriers to U.S. telecommunications services and goods exports in the 2027 NTE Report.
To the extent possible, each comment should include an estimate of the potential increase in exports of goods or services of the United States, U.S. foreign direct investment, or U.S. electronic commerce that would result from removing any significant foreign trade barrier the comment identifies, as well as a description of the methodology the commenter used to derive the estimate. Commenters should express estimates within the following value ranges: less than $25 million; $25 million to $100 million; $100 million to $500 million; and over $500 million.
To be assured of consideration, submit your written comments by the October 29, 2026, 11:59 p.m. EDT deadline. All submissions must be in English. USTR strongly encourages submissions via
To submit via
You will receive a tracking number upon completion of the submission procedure at
For further information on using
If you are unable to provide submissions as requested, please contact Jiexi “Jesse” Huang, in advance of the deadline at
General information concerning USTR is available at
If you ask USTR to treat information you submit as BCI, you must certify that the information is business confidential and you would not customarily release it to the public. For any comments submitted electronically containing BCI, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BCI.” You must clearly mark any page containing BCI with “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing BCI also must submit a public version that will be placed in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P.” Follow the “BCI” and “P” with the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
USTR will post written submissions in the docket for public inspection, except properly designated BCI. You can view comments on
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 2133-0526 (Information to Determine Seamen's Reemployment Rights—National Emergency) is used to determine if U.S. civilian mariners are eligible for reemployment rights under the Maritime Security Act of 1996. MARAD is required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2026
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2026-1519 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Jennifer E. Pralgo, 202-309-7187, Office of Workforce Development and Education, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, MAR-650, Mail Stop 2, Washington, DC 20590,
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing updates to the identifying information of one or more entries currently included on one or more of OFAC's sanctions lists.
See Supplementary Information for relevant dates.
OFAC: Associate Director for the Office of Sanctions Support and Operations, 202-622-6943; Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; or
OFAC's sanctions lists and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On September 9, 2026, OFAC updated the following names to improve data standardization and consistency and/or to correct records that were published with minor errors. The updated names and relevant sanctions authorities are available at the below URL:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on September 9, 2026. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On September 9, 2026, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before November 13, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Tax compliance burden is defined as the time and money taxpayers spend to comply with their tax filing responsibilities. Time-related activities include recordkeeping, tax planning, gathering tax materials, learning about the law, and completing and submitting the return. Out-of-pocket costs include expenses such as purchasing tax software, paying a third-party preparer, and printing and postage. Tax compliance burden does not include a taxpayer's tax liability, economic inefficiencies caused by sub-optimal choices related to tax deductions or credits, or psychological costs.
Total Monetized Burden = Out-of-Pocket Costs + Monetized Time
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts its regulatory fee schedule to assess and collect regulatory fees for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 26).
Effective September 14, 2026. To avoid penalties and interest, regulatory fees should be paid by the due date of September 24, 2026.
Patrick Brogan, Office of Economics and Analytics,
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in MD Docket No. 26-94, FCC 26-59, adopted on August 26, 2026, and released on August 27, 2026. The full text of this document is available at
1. Each fiscal year (FY), the Commission must adopt a schedule of regulatory fees to be assessed and collected by the end of September in an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Pursuant to the Commission's statutory obligation in section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act or Communications Act) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule for fiscal year (FY) 2026 to assess and collect $416,112,000, which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's FY 2026 salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. By statute, the Commission must collect these regulatory fees by the end of September.
2. In April, the Commission proposed a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2026. Consistent with the Commission's longstanding regulatory fee methodology and the record gathered, the Commission adopts most of the proposals in the
3. Finally, the Commission declines to adopt any of the commenters' various proposals to depart from its well-established assessment methodology to lessen fees for regulatees in certain industry sectors, which would unfairly shift the burden of regulatory fees to other fee payors, or to implement new fee categories that were largely considered and rejected by the Commission as recently as last year, particularly since commenters have provided no basis to change the Commission's prior determinations. The Commission does not alter the data source used for assessing regulatory fees on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers, and the Commission also declines to change the de minimis threshold of $1,000.
4. FY 2026 started on October 1, 2025, and ends on September 30, 2026. The regulatory fee collection is guided by both the statutory authority in sections 6 and 9 of the Act and the explicit language of each fiscal year's S&E appropriation directing the amount to be collected as an offsetting collection. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Act and the Commission's FY 2026 S&E appropriation, the Commission is required to collect $416,112,000, in regulatory fees. The Act requires the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs of carrying out its activities in the total amounts provided for in Appropriations Act. Regulatory fees must therefore cover the Commission's non-auctions direct, indirect, and support costs, including costs to cover statutorily required tasks that do not directly equate with oversight and regulation of a particular fee payor, but instead benefit the Commission and the industry as a whole. Direct costs are those such as salaries and expenses; indirect costs are those such as overhead functions, and support costs
5. Congress has prescribed a method for the Commission to collect the full S&E appropriation by keying the Commission's regulatory fee assessment to its FTE burden. One FTE, a “Full Time Equivalent” or “Full Time Employee,” is a unit of measure equal to the work performed annually by a full-time person (working a 40-hr work week for a full year) assigned to the particular job, and subject to agency personnel staffing limitations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. In this proceeding, if the Commission states 1.5 FTEs work on a particular subject matter, that might mean three individuals spend 50% of their time on that area. Moreover, in the
6. The total amount of the offsetting collection generally changes each fiscal year. Therefore, the regulatory fees due from fee payors also typically change as a mathematical consequence of the total amount that needs to be collected, the number of FTEs, and the projected unit estimates for each regulatory fee category. For example, if the number of units in a regulatory fee category increase, the amount due per unit may decrease, depending on other factors. This would also include proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall increase in the annual FY appropriation. Insofar as the Communication Act's explicit language requires that fees must reflect FTEs, the Commission has consistently concluded that FTE counts are the most administrable starting point for regulatory fee allocations, and the Commission regulatory fees are based on the direct FTEs in core bureaus. Thus, when considering changes, additions, or deletions to the regulatory fee schedule, the Commission focus on the direct FTE cost burden related to the regulatory fee category at issue within each of the core licensing bureaus.
7. FTEs are not assigned within a bureau to specific fee categories “by rote or at random, but rather in a manner that reflects the time spent by FTEs on a regulatory fee category, which is in itself a reflection of `benefit' to the fee category.” The Commission apportions regulatory fees across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the payors' benefits. The Commission has stated that Section 9 of the Act is clear, however, that regulatory fee assessments are based on the burden imposed on the Commission, not benefits realized by regulatees. The Commission apportions regulatory fees across fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the payors' benefits. Any decrease to the fees paid by one category of regulatory fee payors necessitates an increase in fees paid by other categories of regulatory fee payors, which means the collection of the Commission's regulatory fees is a zero-sum exercise.
8. The Commission allocates FTEs according to the nature of the work performed by its different organizational units. If FTE work directly relates to the oversight and regulation of a regulatory fee category in one of the five core licensing bureaus then it is considered to be direct. Work that cannot be allocated to one of those regulatory fee categories is counted as indirect FTE time.
9. Indirect FTE time covers a wide range of issues that include services that are not specifically correlated with one core bureau, let alone one specific category of regulatory fee payors. Indirect FTE work also includes matters that are not specific to any regulatory fee category, and many Commission attorneys, economists, engineers,
10. Following this framework, the Commission assesses the allocation of FTEs to regulatory fee payors by first determining the number of direct non-auctions FTEs in each of the Commission's core bureaus. Other factors the Commission takes into consideration include the annual S&E appropriation and the projected unit estimates. Early in each fiscal year, the Human Resources Management office identifies FTEs at the core bureau level. The Commission then validates that data through consultation with the bureaus and offices to determine the number of direct FTEs allocated to each of the five core bureaus. Those numbers are then used to calculate the corresponding percentage of the total amount of regulatory fees to be collected for a given fiscal year from the fee payors of each core bureau. The percentage for each core bureau is the number of direct non-auction FTEs within the core bureau divided by the total number of direct non-auction FTEs in the Commission.
11. This means fees are apportioned across the regulatory fee categories based on the number of direct FTEs in each core bureau whose time is focused on a particular industry segment and are adjusted “to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Specifically, the Commission allocates appropriated amounts to be recovered proportionally based on the number of direct FTEs within each core bureau. Those proportions are then subdivided and apportioned within each core bureau into fee categories among those served based on the time spent on each fee category. Finally, within each regulatory fee category, the amount to be collected is divided by a unit count that allocates the regulatory fee payor's proportionate share based on an objective measure. As a general matter, there is no additional calculation to attribute indirect costs.
12. The FTE time devoted to developing and implementing the Commission's spectrum auctions is not included in the calculation of regulatory fees and is not offset by the collection of regulatory fees. Thus, the Commission's methodology excludes all spectrum auction-related FTEs and their overhead from the regulatory fee calculations. To the extent that FTEs within the core bureaus spend a portion of their time on auctions issues and a portion of their time on other issues, their time is split and only the non-auctions portion of their time is reflected in the relevant core bureau's direct FTE count.
13. In order to collect regulatory fees in the amount required by the Commission annual S&E appropriation, the Commission conducts a rulemaking proceeding each year to consider any necessary increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees and to reflect any adjustments needed to the prior year's fees schedule. For example, if the number of units in a regulatory fee category increases, the amount due per unit may decrease. This would also include proportionate increases in a given fee category to reflect an overall increase in the annual FY appropriation. Such changes are rarely the subject of dispute and are usually addressed in the more ministerial changes to the fee schedule. As necessary, the Commission will also propose amendments to the fee schedule “if it determines that changes are necessary for the fees to reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” Pursuant to the Act, the Commission must notify Congress immediately upon adoption of any adjustment. The Act also requires the Commission to notify Congress at least 90 days prior to making effective any amendments to the regulatory fee schedule.
14. The Commission considers the adoption of a new regulatory fee category or a change in an existing regulatory fee category only when it develops a sufficient basis for making the change, ensuring that the Commission assessment of regulatory fees is fair, administrable, and sustainable. The Commission will adopt new regulatory fee categories and new methodologies for calculating regulatory fees when there is a sufficient basis for doing so based on the record, and under the relevant statutory provisions and precedent.
15. The Commission received 12 comments and four reply comments in response to the Commission's
16. Additionally, the Commission adopts its proposal to continue to calculate television broadcaster regulatory fees using the Commission's methodology of population-based full-service broadcast television regulatory fees. Furthermore, the Commission will continue using Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) assigned number data as the basis for assessing regulatory fees on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers. The Commission also adjusts its tables in response to company- and industry-specific facts put forward by certain commenters. Finally, the Commission will continue to utilize a $1,000 de minimis threshold because it concludes the Commission's average cost of collections do not exceed that amount.
17. Consistent with the Commission's past practice, however, the Commission declines to reallocate other FTE work performed in the non-core bureaus, and the Commission concludes such work is appropriately considered to be indirect. Moreover, commenters have presented no new arguments for the Commission consideration to support their
18. Accordingly, using the Commission's historical methodology for allocating FTEs, the Commission adopts a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2026 as set forth in Tables 3 and 4 to assess and collect $416,112,000, which is an amount that reasonably can be expected to total the Commission's annual S&E FY 2026 appropriation.
19. Section 9 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to set regulatory fees to “reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” As a general matter, the Commission's methodology to establish its regulatory fee schedule is to first identify changes from the prior fiscal year regulatory fee proceeding,
20. For FY 2026, the Commission implements the same methodology that the Commission has historically used to allocate FTEs. To conduct its annual review of regulatory fees for FY 2026, the Commission began by evaluating the work being performed by Commission FTEs. According to information provided by the Commission's Human Resources Management office, at the start of FY 2026, there were 317.5 direct non-auctions FTEs distributed among the core licensing bureaus. With respect to other bureaus and offices within the Commission, staff next conducted a high-level, yet comprehensive, analysis of the work being performed by non-auctions FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as well as the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (and other bureaus and offices) in order to determine whether with reasonable certainty for the fiscal year 2026 any identifiable time of the FTEs in those organizational units is directly related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors such that it should be considered in applying the Commission's fee methodology. In other words, the Commission examined and validated the FTE data through consultation with the bureaus and offices to determine whether in applying the Commission's regulatory fee methodology any FTE time in the non-core bureaus and offices should be considered to be reallocated as direct FTE time to a core bureau.
21. Although the Commission continues to conclude that much of the work of the FTEs in the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is appropriately considered indirect, in validating the FTE count for FY 2026, it again finds the data support a conclusion that there is measurable FTE time devoted to work that is sufficiently linked to the oversight and regulation of regulatory fee payors such that the burden of that work should be allocated as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes. Moreover, commenters generally support the Commission's efforts to ensure that regulatory fees reflect the work performed by Commission FTEs that benefits fee payors. Likewise, no commenter objects to the Commission's proposed reallocations from Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. The Commission therefore adopts most of its proposals to reallocate 61 FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics, the Office of General Counsel, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct FTEs to core bureaus because the nature of their work has been determined to be primarily related to the oversight and regulation of fee payors. With respect to the Office of General Counsel, however, the Commission concludes that one additional FTE should be allocated as direct. Additionally, the Commission declines to adopt the
22. In the
23. Additionally, because the amount of work of FTEs in the Office of General Counsel devoted to Media Bureau matters has increased in this fiscal year, the Commission reallocates an additional FTE to the Media Bureau as direct for this fiscal year. The Commission believes that this adjustment is fully consistent with its longstanding methodology, while offering a more precise and thus more equitable assessment of fees. Although the Commission makes this adjustment based on staff validation of the data regarding FTE utilization, it notes that it
24. Specifically, for FY 2026, the Commission reallocates 31 FTEs from the Office of Economics and Analytics as direct to a core bureau for regulatory fee purposes as follows: three to the Space Bureau, one to the Office of International Affairs, eight to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 17 to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and two to the Media Bureau. Similarly, as explained above, the Commission reallocates four FTEs from the Office of General Counsel as direct FTEs to a core bureaus as follows: one to the Wireline Competition Bureau, one to the Space Bureau, and two to the Media Bureau. Likewise, the Commission reallocates 27 FTEs in the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau as direct to a core bureau as follows: 13 to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, eight to the Wireline Competition Bureau, and six to the Media Bureau.
25. The Commission bases these reallocations on staff's validation of the data and an analysis similar to the last three fiscal years evaluating whether measurable FTE time is primarily being spent on the regulation and oversight of regulatory fee payors such that it should be considered as direct to a core bureau. As the Commission has previously explained, in discussing FTEs, it is not referring to any particular employee at the Commission but rather an amount of work performed annually by a full time employee or employees. In analyzing the work of FTEs, the Commission's staff applies conservative estimates so as not to imply a false sense of precision in the reallocations. Specifically, where the amount of work under consideration for reallocation of an indirect FTE is half an FTE or less, the Commission rounds down, and it only implements reallocations in full FTE increments.
26. As represented below, FTE time associated with these reallocations is added to the direct FTE totals of the relevant core bureau. In other words, these reallocations increase the number of direct FTEs in a core bureau and reduce the total number of indirect FTEs within the Commission. Because the Commission's underlying methodology for calculating regulatory fees remains unchanged, it concludes that its regulatory fee calculation continues to be consistent with section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires the Commission to base its methodology on the number of FTEs.
27. Table 1 below shows the percentage of regulatory fees allocated to each core bureau based on the reallocation of a net increase of 62 FTEs as direct to a core bureau. These reallocations result in a 19.53% increase in the Commission overall direct FTE count for the fiscal year. These reallocations are proportionally distributed within the core bureau and are reflected in Tables 3 and 4, which are based on the Commission's existing methodology and incorporate these reallocations.
28. As reflected in Table 1 above, based on these reallocations and after adjustments are made to the direct FTE counts to implement Commission precedent, the Commission has a total of 379.5 non-auctions direct FTEs for FY 2026. Accordingly, as shown in Table 2 below, the Commission will collect approximately $9.909 million (2.38%) in fees from the Office of International Affairs regulatory fee payors; $52.851 million (12.70%) in fees from the Space Bureau regulatory fee payors; $112.308 million (26.99%) in fees from Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatory fee payors; $118.363 million (28.45%) in fees from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatory fee payors; and
29. The Commission rejects requests to adjust its FTE analysis solely to benefit one category of regulatory fee payors and shift the fee burden to the other categories in the absence of reliable data upon which to base such a change. In particular, Kepler and SES express concern about the increase in fees from FY 2025 for regulatees of the Space Bureau and ask the Commission “to place a moratorium on increasing the FY 2026 fees relative to those collected for FY 2025” or to “buffer increases” of the fees. Similarly, SCC and NASCA assert that the fee increase for regulatees of the Office of International Affairs is excessive and propose that the Commission “reduce the proposed submarine cable fees to a level commensurate with economic reality and the statutory boundaries the Commission must abide by” or “cap any increase at no more than 10 percent for FY 2026, with the revenue requirement in excess of the amount represented by the cap treated as the equivalent of indirect FTEs.” Furthermore, NAB contends that the Commission should reduce the fee burden for earth stations by capping their fees to no more than $2,500 per earth station license, contending that such a result would be fair because broadcasters pay earth station regulatory fees in addition to the fees assessed for their broadcasting licenses, which unfairly compounds the financial burden on broadcasters. NAB recommends that the Commission shift the burden to other Space Bureau regulatory fee payors, namely NGSO satellite operators.
30. Although the Commission is mindful of concerns raised by these commenters that its regulatory fees need to be predictable and not prone to excessive fluctuation, requests for special accommodation are not consistent with the Commission's statutory obligation to collect the its entire appropriation this fiscal year. Such requests, as the Commission has previously explained, are in essence requests to shift fees from one category of regulatory fee payors to other regulatory fee payors based not on the relative FTE burden, but on policy rationales. In FY 2024 in the context of rejecting similar requests, the Commission explained and distinguished adjustments undertaken over a decade before that were necessary to address validation flaws identified by GAO. Specifically, in 2012, GAO reported that the Commission used FTE data that was 13 years out of date. In 2013, the Commission implemented a “multi-year program of reform” agency-wide “correcting the extraordinary error on the Commission's part in applying a stale FTE count.” Commenters' requests for accommodations in this fiscal year are therefore not analogous to that situation. Instead, here, as the Commission explained in detail above, the FTE counts are validated annually and the regulatory fee increases for FY 2026 are due to the roughly 6.6% increase in its overall fiscal year 2026 appropriation, changes in the direct FTEs working on space and earth station matters and submarine cable matters, and/or changes in the units of measure for these fee categories. Thus, the FY 2026 regulatory fee increase is attributable directly to the requirements of following the Commission statutory methodology—which include the benefit of oversight and regulation of its regulatory fee payors as measured by FTE levels. NAB itself recognizes that the increase in fees for earth station fee payors is a function of the Commission's methodology and the fact that the number of earth stations decreased while the percentage of the Commission's appropriation attributable to the Space Bureau increased.
31. As the Commission observed the last time it was asked to implement such measures, “because [the Commission] must collect the full amount of the appropriation as an offsetting collection, decreasing the fee on any one category must be offset with an increased collection in another category.” Section 9 of the Act prescribes a method of collecting an amount equal to the full S&E appropriation by keying the regulatory fee assessment to the Commission's FTE burden. As a result, the fee assigned to each regulatory fee category relates to the FTE burden associated with oversight and regulation of each regulatory fee category by the relevant core bureaus. Section 9 does not provide any other basis for assessing regulatory fees or any basis for capping fees for a particular fiscal year, or phasing in increases in fees over several fiscal years, for a particular category or categories of fee payors. The Commission therefore declines to implement commenters' suggestions in circumstances such as these where regulatory fees are based on direct FTEs to a core bureau, are consistent with its statutory congressional direction under section 9 of the Communications Act, and no other special extenuating circumstances for consideration exist.
32. After analyzing the data for FY 2026 as well as the record in this proceeding, the Commission affirms the its prior conclusion that the majority of FTE work being performed in the non-core bureaus and offices should be categorized as indirect because it benefits the Commission and the entire telecommunications industry generally and does not specifically focus on regulatory fee payors. The Commission reaches this conclusion based on both the staff's high level review of the work of FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices and because no commenter provided any insight into its questions in the
33. NAB's contention that the Commission should reallocate FTEs in non-core bureaus as direct even when those FTEs work on matters that also pertain to non-fee payors fails to consider the Commission's repeated explanation that it takes a conservative approach to analyzing the workload of its FTEs and only reallocates an FTE as direct where the amount of work under consideration is more than half of an FTE. NAB's conclusory statements without any analysis do not warrant further examination by the Commission. In sum, NAB offers no reasons why the Commission should expand its methodology to include FTEs that work primarily on matters that pertain to non-fee payors and provides no solutions regarding how to do so.
34. NAB also renews its criticism of the Commission's well-established decision to treat FTEs working on non-high cost universal service fund issues, but fails to dispute the Commission's long-held conclusion that such treatment is consistent with how it treats FTEs working for programs that benefit consumers and the American public elsewhere in the Commission. Likewise, NAB's repetition of its 2022 comments arguing that the Commission should not include broadcasters in the allocation of FTEs associated with the Commission's broadband data mapping work under the Broadband DATA Act offers no new reasoning other than NAB's continued disagreement with the Commission's decision that the unique change in its methodology in 2021 to exclude Media Services licensees from their share in such costs was based on the one-time nature of a congressional earmark and had nothing to do with the Commission making a finding that “any group of regulatees do not benefit from broadband-related activities.”
35. Finally, the Commission disagrees with NAB's more general complaint that its FTE allocations are “opaque.” While NAB applauds the Commission's continued efforts to modernize its regulatory fee methodology, it nonetheless maintains that commenters are unable to participate in the Commission's reallocation decisions. Contrary to NAB's criticism, however, the Commission has made clear how commenters can contribute to the Commission's assessment of annual regulatory fees and the basis for why the Commission may reallocate an FTE as direct to a core bureau. In particular, the Commission specifically invites commenters, as it did again this year, “to offer any new or current reasons why the Commission should reexamine the nature of the work being performed by FTEs in its non-core bureaus and offices” and seeks specific input in the record regarding whether there have been “any significant developments in the communications industry, changes in law, and/or substantial shifts in Commission policy and workload over the past year” that reflect measurable FTE work being performed in the non-core bureaus and offices that may not have been considered.
36. Moreover, the claim that without more transparency, commenters cannot offer contributions that will impact the regulatory fee assessment process does not withstand scrutiny. Indeed, the State Broadcasters Associations' assertion “that the Commission imposes conditions upon commenters that cannot be met” is belied by its own reference to past instances where its comments affected the Commission's allocations of FTEs. At the same time the State Broadcasters Associations complain that the Commission “demands that outside commenters bring evidence to it that they simply do not possess and will not possess unless it is provided to them by the Commission,” they trumpet their success in 2021 convincing the Commission to adjust its proposed FTE allocations due to the congressional earmark for the Broadband Data Act.
37. As previously noted, the Commission strives to make the regulatory fee process, including the reallocations of FTEs in its methodology, fair, sustainable, and administrable. The delegated authority of the Commission's bureau and offices is well understood and documented, the regulatory work of these organizational units is both public and easily reviewed, and the Commission includes significant information about its performance, budgets, and policy objectives in the information it releases to satisfy numerous reporting requirements. Thus, commenters have access to both resources and data to challenge the Commission's FTE allocations. Rather than stepping into the Commission's shoes to evaluate the Commission's analysis of its own FTE data, commenters can contribute to the process by offering responses to the questions posed in the NPRM and evaluating issues the Commission should factor into its reallocation considerations. In this regard, the Commission finds it notable that no commenter offered any insight into new or current reasons to reevaluate its
38. In sum, the Commission concludes that NAB's and the State Broadcasters Associations' general requests to have more information from the Commission regarding the Commission's FTE data seeks to impose a level of precision on the Commission's reallocation process that does not align with the Commission's methodology. Each year in proposing FTE reallocations from indirect to direct, the Commission has provided notice of what organizational unit the FTE burden is being reallocated to and from. Moreover, commenters have historical and detailed insight into the type of measurable FTE work the Commission has found warranted the reallocation of FTEs as direct to a core bureau. The Commission therefore concludes, as it has in the past, that amending its methodology to include “added granularity” to its process like NAB and the State Broadcasters Associations request would not “change the overall result, or improve the Commission's
39. The Commission also rejects the claims of commenters that it must find ways to reduce the burden of indirect FTEs on fee payors that are based on arguments that the Commission has previously, and thoroughly, rejected. In particular, SES argues that the Commission should create new fee categories for “experimental licenses, unlicensed use, and automated frequency coordination systems” and even goes so far as to suggest the Commission should designate the Office of Engineering and Technology as a new core bureau—all without offering a single new reason for the Commission to consider doing so. As the Commission explicitly explained in the
40. For example, the State Broadcasters Associations suggest that the Commission should adopt a new fee category for equipment certification labs because they contend such a category would be “remarkably similar to the `holds an FCC-issued authorization' criterion that has served as the basis for charging regulatory fees to broadcasters and other legacy fee payors for the past several decades.” But, in making this argument, the State Broadcasters Associations notably avoid the more apt comparison to equipment authorizations—a category that the Commission has repeatedly declined to adopt. It seems that having failed to convince the Commission that equipment authorizations should be added to the regulatory fees categories, the State Broadcasters Associations now try to convince us that a regulatory fee should apply to the test labs that provide equipment certifications to those seeking such authorizations from the Commission. This would essentially backdoor the addition of equipment authorizations to the regulatory fee categories as testing labs would presumably pass those fees onto the manufacturers of the equipment they certify. The State Broadcasters Associations provide no explanation for why the Commission's reasoning in declining to adopt a fee category for equipment authorizations is not equally applicable to laboratories that perform measurements of equipment subject to an equipment authorization (
41. Moreover, the State Broadcasters Associations do not address the very minimal nature of the Commission's FTE work related to the recognition process for laboratories that perform measurements of equipment subject to an equipment authorization. Although the Commission acknowledges that in establishing certain rules related to these labs, some FTE time is devoted to adopting regulations that allow such labs to perform their functions for certain Commission licensees as well as other permittees, these efforts are limited and do not result in the work of FTEs being sufficient to subsequently assess fees year after year based on such a limited FTE burden. Furthermore, such work represents only a subcomponent of the larger equipment authorization workstream. For example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and not the Commission manages the process of test lab accrediting and designating Telecommunications Certification Bodies in the U.S., whereas, the designation of third-party certification bodies located outside the U.S. are a matter of bi-lateral or multi-lateral international agreements, which would make requiring such entities to pay regulatory fees an international policy concern (were the Commission to find a basis to subject equipment authorization activities to regulatory fees). The Commission adopts a new regulatory fee category only when there is a sufficient legal and factual basis to conclude that significant FTE time is used in the oversight and regulation of a regulatee such that adoption of a fee category and designation of fee would satisfy the requirements of Section 9 of the Communications Act and the Commission's overarching goals that its regulatory framework is fair, administrable, and sustainable. Because the State Broadcasters Associations have not offered a framework by which it could assess laboratories involved in the testing of equipment for Certification with regulatory fees consistent with the Commission's methodology and policy goals, the Commission declines to do so.
42. One Ministries, which argues in a single sentence that the Commission should consider virtual MVPD providers as equivalent to cable service providers and assess them with the same regulatory fees, likewise offers no support or basis for how to do so. Specifically, this suggestion is provided without a factual or legal justification for how the agency could do so within the Commission's statutory authority and prior decision-making.
43. Additionally, because the Commission fully considered and rejected the suggestion to convene “stake holder roundtables” in 2023, for the same reasons the previously articulated, the Commission will not revisit the State Broadcasters Associations' suggestion to do so in FY 2026. Although the Commission recognizes the incentives for some commenters to continue to seek to expand the pool of entities subject to the Commission's regulatory fee process, repeatedly offering the same suggestions, without more factual or legal support for doing so, does not improve the Commission's regulatory fee process or satisfy the Commission's obligation to collect its full appropriation as dictated by section 9 of the Act. On the other hand, the Commission is encouraged by CTIA's agreement with the Commission's assessment that the work of FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices should remain indirect as well as CTIA's
44. As the Commission has explained for many years, the work of FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau benefits the agency as a whole and the American public, and not one particular group of regulatory fee payors. In light of CTIA's support and in the absence of evidence to depart from the Commission's previously articulated reasons for treating its FTEs in the non-core bureau and offices, and more specifically, the FTEs in the Office of Engineering and Technology, Enforcement Bureau, and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, as indirect, the Commission affirms its past conclusion that it is not equitable for any one regulatory fee group of payors to shoulder the FTE burden of such indirect work.
45. As part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to modernize the assessment of regulatory fees, the Commission will continue its annual evaluation of whether any FTEs in the non-core bureaus and offices should be reallocated for regulatory fee purposes and exercise its discretion regarding where to focus its analytical efforts each year to best respond to changes in its substantive work and organization and changes in the telecommunications industry itself. In so doing, the Commission will look for additional ways in which it can ensure that it conducts its annual review and analysis of the FTE data in a manner that is fair, administrable, and sustainable.
46. The Commission adopts its proposal, which was supported by NAB in the record, to continue to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations based on the population covered by a full-service broadcast television station's contour as the Commission has since 2020. The population-based methodology conforms with the service authorized here—broadcasting television to the American people. The Commission will also continue the Commission's use of 2020 U.S. Census data to assess fees for full-power broadcast television stations, as the Commission traditionally has over the last few years. The population data for broadcasters' service areas are determined using the TVStudy software and the Licensing and Management System (LMS) database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour. However, consistent with the Commission's decision in FY 2024, the Commission will base assessments on limiting the population count of full-power television stations that rely on satellite television stations to reach terrain-limited areas in Puerto Rico. The Commission adopts a factor of $.007090 per population served for the FY 2026 full-power broadcast television station fee. The population data for each licensee and the population-based fee (population multiplied by $.007090 for each full-power broadcast television station) are listed in Table 8.
47. The Commission concludes that it will continue to assess regulatory fees for providers of CMRS and Mobile Services using a unit measure methodology based on the count of “assigned numbers” reported in providers' biannual Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) filings.
48. CTIA was the only commenter to address the questions the Commission posed in the
49. The Commission agrees with CTIA that the Commission should not make any changes at this time. Given the lack of record support to change the Commission's existing methodology, the Commission concludes that NRUF assigned numbers data, which serve as a proxy for a provider's subscriber count, remain a reliable reflection of the FTE burden of the Commission's oversight of CMRS and mobile service providers and continue to meet the Commission's goals that the regulatory fee methodology is fair, sustainable, and administrable.
50. The Commission also declines to act on the requests of commenters to amend the Commission's methodology for assessing regulatory fees in this fiscal year based on issues raised in the
51. For similar reasons, the Commission also declines the request of NAB to reduce the regulatory fees on Transmit/Receive and Transmit only earth stations and shift such burdens to non-GSO space station fee payors because NAB claims those fee payors “appear to be the focus of the Space Bureau's priorities.” While NAB makes an effort to support its proposal for a fee reduction by generally pointing to the Space Bureau's recent work associated with the
52. The Commission does, however, make the necessary corrections to its
53. Additionally, after review of the relevant Commission data and consistent with comments from SES, Spire, and Eutelsat, the Commission corrects Table 7 of the
54. Section 9(e)(2) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt a party from paying regulatory fees if “in the judgment of the Commission, the cost of collecting a regulatory fee established under this section from a party would exceed the amount collected from such party.” As explained below, after a careful review of the Commission's costs for the collection of delinquent regulatory fees, the Commission declines NAB's request to increase the de minimis threshold amount to $1,200.
55. By statute, a determination to raise the de minimis threshold for the payment of regulatory fees narrowly rests upon the Commission's cost of collections. At the outset, the Commission notes that the Commission's Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) implementation, including adoption of the red-light rule, minimizes regulatory fee delinquent debt. In the limited circumstances where the Commission must pursue delinquent regulatory fees, the Commission has explained that its administrative process includes various functions, such as gathering data and validating data from the bureaus and external sources; validating delinquent bills; preparing delinquency bills for transfer to collection agent for processing; and processing payments received from collection (
56. The Commission calculates its collection costs for purposes of determining the de minimis threshold by estimating the number of FTE hours spent on each collection task multiplied by the value of FTE time expended on the task, to arrive at the estimated total cost of each task. The totals for each task are then added together to determine the total estimated cost of collection. The total estimated cost of collection divided by the estimated number of delinquent regulatory fee debts for that fiscal year yields the average cost of collecting an unpaid regulatory fee. The Commission's review of the estimated amount of FTE time devoted to collecting delinquent regulatory fees as well as the hourly rate of a Commission FTE assigned to such tasks reveals that the Commission's costs have not increased above the existing de minimis threshold.
57. Accordingly, NAB's and the State Broadcasters Associations' inferences to the contrary both fail to validate a different result. In particular, NAB reasons that since the Commission's staff salaries have increased since 2022, the Commission's cost of collections has “likely increased.” The State Broadcasters Associations support NAB's request and further maintain that since some fee payors' regulatory fees have now increased above the $1,000 de minimis threshold, it must follow that the Commission's cost of collections “have similarly climbed.” But an increase in the regulatory fees of certain regulatees to levels above the $1,000 de minimis threshold does not cause—or even directly correlate to—an increase in FCC's cost of collection of delinquent regulatory fees. In other words, because the methodologies for calculating regulatory fees and the cost of collections expenses differ, a rise in regulatory fees does not necessarily reflect or result in an increased cost of collections. And, while FTE salaries are one input into the Commission's cost of collection of delinquent debt, higher salaries without a significant increase in FTE time devoted to collections does not alone justify a 20% increase in the threshold.
58. Unlike the variable amount of regulatory fees that must be collected on an annual basis, the cost of the Commission's collections is less prone to fluctuations. It is merely one small aspect in the agency implementation of a vigorous debt collection process. Thus, it is not surprising that the cost has remained below the existing threshold.
59. Additionally, because regulatory fees are a zero-sum game, a higher de minimis threshold means that in order to collect the Commission's entire appropriation, regulatees with fee obligations above the threshold must cover the shortfall of regulatory fees that fall below it. Consequently, raising the de minimis threshold to benefit some regulatory fee payors over others, in the absence of an increase in costs of collection, is not supported by the Commission's statutory authority and is contrary to the goals of a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory framework. And, while NAB is correct that the Commission does not provide its internal collection calculations for review by commenters,
60. Moreover, due to the limited nature of the fee exemptions expressly provided by statute, the Commission cannot implement NAB's suggestion to cap the regulatory fee assessment for classes of stations that fell below the de minimis threshold last year. Establishing the de minimis threshold on such a basis would result in exempting classes or categories of fee payors, which would necessarily result in another set of entities shouldering the fee burden. As the Commission explained the last time it entertained NAB's request to raise the threshold amount, although the de minimis threshold “has the collateral effect of providing financial relief to some regulatees” that does not mean that a regulatee's de minimis status provides it with a permanent exemption from regulatory fees. Furthermore, as the Commission has previously explained, pursuant to the wording of section 9(e)(2) of the Act, “providing relief for financially strapped regulatees is not a factor for Commission consideration in setting this threshold.” Nothing in the text of the statute supports using policy factors outside the cost of collection in establishing the de minimis threshold, and any regulatee with a financial hardship may seek a waiver, reduction, or deferral of its regulatory fees through the Commission's well-established process. Accordingly, after an internal evaluation of the Commission's costs, the Commission again concludes that the cost of collecting regulatory fees does not justify an increase to the existing $1,000 de minimis threshold.
61. Included below are procedural items as well as our current payment and collection methods. The Commission includes these payments and collection procedures here as a useful way of reminding regulatory fee payers and the public about these aspects of the annual regulatory fee collection process.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
67.
68. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing CORES and following the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation. The Commission will then review the revised count and supporting explanation, if any, and either approve or disapprove the submission in CORES. If the submission is disapproved, the Commission will contact the provider to afford the provider an opportunity to discuss its revised subscriber count and/or provide supporting documentation. If the Commission receives no response from the provider, or the Commission does not reverse its initial disapproval of the provider's revised count submission, the fee payment must be based on the number of subscribers listed initially in CORES. Once the timeframe for revision has passed, the telephone number counts are final and are the basis upon which CMRS regulatory fees are to be paid. Providers can view their final telephone counts online in CORES.
69. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in CORES. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2026, the Commission adjusted FY 2025 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2026 payment liabilities. The Commission obtained its updated estimates through a variety of means and sources. For example, the Commission used Commission licensee databases, actual prior year payment records, and industry and trade association projections, where available. The databases the Commission consulted include the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Communications Filing System (ICFS), Licensing and Management System (LMS), and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
The Commission sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, the Commission compared FY 2026 estimates with actual FY 2025 payment units to ensure that its revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, the Commission adjusted and/or rounded its final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2026 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates over time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When the Commission notes, for example, that its estimated FY 2026 payment units are based on FY 2025 actual payment units, it does not necessarily mean that the Commission's FY 2026 projection is exactly the same number as in FY 2025. The Commission has either rounded the FY 2026 number or adjusted it slightly to account for these variables.
For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in §§ 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the
The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2020 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
70. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Review of the Commission's Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2026,
71. In the
72. In the
73. Although not specifically filed in response to the IRFA, comments were filed suggesting alternatives to various elements of the methodology for assessing regulatory fees, including but not limited to proposals to adopt new fee categories, proposals to alleviate the impact of fee increases by reducing them or capping them for particular categories of fee payors—thereby effectively shifting the burden to other payors—and proposals to raise the de minimis threshold for exemptions from fees. Various proposals for new categories were supported by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), State Broadcasters Associations, SES Americom (SES), and One Ministries, Inc., but opposed by others, such as CTIA. Proposals to alleviate fee increases by reducing or capping and shifting regulatory fees for certain fee payors were offered by SES, Kepler, the Submarine Cable Coalition (SCC), the North American Submarine Cable Association (NASCA), and NAB. NAB proposed, and State Broadcasters Associations supported, raising the de minimis threshold. The Commission addresses these comments in Section F below.
74. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy, and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
75. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
76. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by the Commission's actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While the Commission does not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
77. The rules adopted in the
78. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
79. The
80. In addition, small entities facing financial hardship from the regulatory assessments adopted in the
81. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
82. In response to the
83.
84.
85.
86. Although the Commission is mindful of concerns raised by these commenters that the Commission's regulatory fees need to be predictable and not prone to excessive fluctuation, it was unable to reconcile these particular requests for special accommodations with its statutory obligation to collect the Commission's entire appropriation this fiscal year. The fee increases for FY 2026 are due to either increased direct FTEs working on satellite and earth station matters and submarine cable matters, changes in the units of measure for these fee categories, and/or the roughly 6.6% increase in the Commission's overall fiscal year appropriation. Thus, the FY 2026 regulatory fee increase is attributable directly to circumstances which were for the benefit of these fee payors under the Commission's methodology. As the Commission has observed, “because we must collect the full amount of the appropriation as an offsetting collection, decreasing the fee on any one category must be offset with an increased collection in another category.” The Commission declined to take such inherently unfair actions in circumstances such as these where regulatory fees are based on direct FTEs to a core bureau, are consistent with the Commission's statutory congressional direction under section 9 of the Communications Act, and no other special extenuating circumstances for consideration exist. Contrary to suggestions by certain commenters, the Commission declined to adjust its analysis to financially advantage certain categories of regulatees at the expense of others, including small entities.
87.
88. Yet, by statute, a determination to raise the de minimis threshold for the payment of regulatory fees narrowly rests upon the Commission's cost of collections. The Commission concluded that the calculus dictated by the statute required it to use its predictive judgment to determine whether the cost of collections outweighs the Commission's efforts in what will be collected. Unlike the variable amount of regulatory fees that must be collected on an annual basis, the cost of the Commission's collections is less prone to fluctuations and has remained relatively constant over time. Additionally, because regulatory fees are a zero-sum game, a higher de minimis threshold means that in order to collect the Commission's entire appropriation, regulatees with fee obligations above the threshold must cover the shortfall of regulatory fees that fall below it. Consequently, raising the de minimis threshold to benefit some regulatory fee payors over others, in the absence of an increase in costs of collection, is not supported by the Commission's statutory authority and is contrary to the goal of a fair, sustainable, and administrable regulatory framework. The Commission's review of the cost of collections revealed that the Commission's costs have not increased above the existing de minimis threshold. Accordingly, after an internal evaluation of the costs, the Commission again concluded that the cost of collecting regulatory fees did not justify an increase to the existing $1,000 de minimis threshold. Nonetheless, any regulatee with a financial hardship may seek a waiver, reduction, or deferral of its regulatory fees through the Commission's well-established process.
89.
90. The Commission will send a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the FY 2026 Report and Order, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) in the
91. Accordingly,
92.
98.
(b) If the import ban imposed in this proclamation is invalidated in whole or in part as to any import, then the 50 percent
(b) If the import ban imposed in this proclamation is invalidated in whole or in part as to any import, then the 50 percent
(b) If the import ban imposed in this proclamation is invalidated in whole or in part as to any import, then the 50 percent