A. Overview

Under the previous Administration, RD established three key priorities that were made public and incorporated into program activities. The RD Key Priorities were incorporated into funding notices in the following manner. First, a general reference to the Administration's key priorities was included in the introductory section of most RD funding notices.

The previous Administration's RD Key Priorities for discretionary points were generally:

(a) Assisting rural communities to recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure. Applicant would receive priority points if theproject were located in or serving a rural community whose economic well-being ranks in the most distressed tier (distress score of 80 or higher) of the Distressed Communities Index using the Distressed Communities Look-Up Map available at rd.usda.gov/priority-points .

(b) Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects. Using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) Look-Up Map (available at rd.usda.gov/priority-points ), an applicant would receive priority points if:

• The project were located in or serving a community with score 0.75 or above on the SVI;

• The applicant were a federally recognized tribe, including Tribal instrumentalities and entities that are wholly owned by Tribes; or

• Was a project where at least 50 percent of the project beneficiaries were members of federally Recognized Tribes and non-Tribal applicants included a Tribal Resolution of Consent from the Tribe or Tribes that the applicant was proposing to serve.

• The application was from or benefiting a Rural Partner's Network's (RPN) community network. Currently RPN Networks exist in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Using the Community Look-Up map (available at rd.usda.gov/priority-points ) the applicant could determine if a project qualified for priority points.

(c) Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities. Using the Disadvantaged Community and Energy Community Look-Up Map (available at rd.usda.gov/priority-points ), applicants would receive priority in one of the three ways:

• If the project were located in or served a Disadvantaged Community as defined by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ);

• If the project were located in or served an Energy Community as defined by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Pub. L. 117-169) (IRA); and

• If applicants could demonstrate through a written narrative how the proposed climate-impact projects would improve the livelihoods of community residents and meet pollution mitigation or clean energy goals.

Second, some, but not all, programs included discretionary points related to one or more of the key priorities. These points were, or could be, considered as part of the application scoring.

RD has identified 14 program funding opportunities, listed in Table 1, that reference the prior Administration's key priorities and/or DEI-related scoring criteria for which application deadlines either closed after January 20, 2025, are currently accepting funding applications, or for which there are rolling deadlines.

Any interested member of the public may attend the meetings via the links above. Before adjourning the meetings, the committee chair will announce that any member of the public may make a brief oral statement, as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of meetings will include a list of persons who are present at meetings. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email ebohor@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to each meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following scheduled meetings. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@usccr.gov; please include Colorado Committee in the subject line of the transmitting email. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at 1-312-353-8311.

Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after each meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via the file sharing website: https://usccr.box.com/s/aq52obvbs8uhkx2a0198po94elwbf2vl. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at ebohor@usccr.gov.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of the committee's limited time left in their term and their desire to hold an additional meeting to advance their project.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.

On October 26, 2023, NMFS received a request from the USCG for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activity associated with the Station Siuslaw River construction project in Florence, Oregon. Following NMFS' review of the application, we received a revised version of the application on April 18, 2024. After finalizing construction details, the USCG submitted revised versions on July 16, 2024 and October 16, 2024, followed by a final revised version on November 18, 2024, which was deemed adequate and complete on December 5, 2024. USCG's request is for take of harbor seal, California sea lion, Steller sea lion, and harbor porpoise by Level B harassment, and for harbor seal and harbor porpoise, Level A harassment. Neither USCG nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

The USCG requested an IHA to correct shoreline erosion and replace the covered mooring and appurtenant structures at USCG Station Siuslaw River in Florence, Oregon (figure 1). This two-phased project entails both onshore and in-water construction activities including site preparation, demolition, shoreline stabilization measures, pile removal and installation, and overwater construction. Phase 1 includes onshore infrastructure improvements, sitework and shoreline stabilization, and phase 2 includes overwater and in-water construction including all pile install and removal.

The only part of the project that may result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals, and further analyzed in this notice, are the in-water construction activities associated with vibratory and impact pile driving (phase 2). The USCG plans to remove 71 timber piles via vibratory driving and to install 79 total piles via vibratory and impact driving with an estimated 48 total days of pile removal and install. USCG plans to install 16-inch (in) (40.6 centimeters (cm)) to 20-in (50.8 cm) steel pipe piles, and/or 14-in (35.6 cm) H-piles for their new infrastructure. Pile driving will only occur within the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) approved in-water work window; however the IHA will have a 1-year period of effectiveness.

A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (90 FR 7082, January 21, 2025). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to USCG was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2025 (90 FR 7082). That notice described, in detail, USCG's activities, the marine mammal species that may be affected by the activities, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals. In that notice, we requested public input on the request for authorization described therein, our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of the notice of proposed IHA, and requested that interested persons submit relevant information, suggestions, and comments. This proposed notice was available for a 30-day public comment period. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS did not receive any public comments.

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ) and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ).

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2023 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

All species that could potentially occur in the project areas are included in section 3 of the IHA application on page 12. While killer whales ( Orcinus orca ), humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), and gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ) have been sighted off the Oregon coast, the USCG's project is located in the Siuslaw River where these species do not occur. Therefore, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here and in the USCG's application. For more details on the species that are likely to occur near the project area and may be taken by USCG's activities, see sections 3 and 4 of USCG's IHA application, the SARs, and NMFS' website.

Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the ~65 decibel (dB) threshold from composite audiograms, previous analyses in NMFS (2018), and/or data from Southall et al. (2007) and Southall et al. (2019). We note that the names of two hearing groups and the generalized hearing ranges of all marine mammal hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS, 2024) as reflected below in table 2.

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 was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2025 at 90 FR 5834. This comment period ended March 18, 2025. No public comments were received from this Notice.

Title of Collection: Days of Service Project Collection Tool.

OMB Control Number: 3045-0122.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Respondents/Affected Public: Businesses and Organizations.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 100,000.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,667.

Abstract: AmeriCorps is seeking approval to renew its Days of Service Project Tool, which allows organizers of volunteer events to register their service projects that are associated with Martin Luther King, Jr., Service Day, September 11th Day of Service, and other volunteer events. Respondents include national service grantees, corporations, volunteer organizations, government entities, and individuals. Information provided is purely voluntary and will not be used for any grant or funding support. No changes are being requested to this information collection. The current application is due to expire on March 31, 2025.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

1. Title: Acquisition Services Information Requirements.

OMB Number: 3064-0072.

Form Number: 1600/04; 1600/07; 3700/04A; 3700/12; 3700/44; 3700/57.

Affected Public: Private sector, business and other for-profit entities.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: This information collection involves the submission of various forms by (1) contractors who wish to do business with the FDIC or are currently under contract with the FDIC, (2) those vendors and parties participating in innovation pilot programs and prize competitions with the possibility of being awarded a contract, and (3) government agencies or commercial businesses that provide FDIC with past performance information. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1819) empowers the FDIC to enter into contracts using private sector contractors to provide goods or services. Many of these contracts are in service to mission essential functions, including resolutions. The Act also provides that the FDIC may promulgate policies and procedures to administer the powers granted to it, including the power to enter into contracts. Pursuant to such policies, the Acquisition and Corporate Services Branch of the FDIC's Division of Administration has developed forms and clauses to facilitate the procurement of goods and services from private sector contractors. The information collected through these forms and clauses fall under the definition of collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). There is no change in the methodology or substance of this information collection. The decrease in total estimated annual burden from 21,234 hours in 2022 to 13,326 hours currently is due to the deletion of the former IC associated with Form 1600/10.

2. Title: Notices Required of Government Securities Dealers or Brokers (Insured State Nonmember Banks).

OMB Number: 3064-0093.

Form Number: G-FIN; G-FINW; G-FIN-4; G-FIN-5.

Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks acting as government securities brokers and dealers.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The Government Securities Act of 1986 requires all financial institutions acting as government securities brokers and dealers to notify their Federal regulatory agencies of their broker dealer activities, unless exempted from the notice requirements by Treasury Department regulation. The Form G-FIN and Form G-FINW are used by insured State nonmember banks that are government securities brokers or dealers to notify the FDIC of their status or that they have ceased to function as a government securities broker or dealer. The Form G-FIN-4 is used by associated persons of insured State nonmember banks that are government securities brokers or dealers to provide certain information to the bank and to the FDIC concerning employment, residence, and statutory disqualification. The Form G-FIN-5 is used by insured State nonmember banks that are government securities brokers or dealers to notify the FDIC that an associated person is no longer associated with the government securities broker or dealer function of the bank. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall decrease in burden hours is driven both by the decrease in the estimated annual number of responses and the changes to the estimated time per response.

3. Title: Activities and Investments of Insured Depository Institutions.

OMB Number: 3064-0111.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks and insured State savings associations.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: Section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1831a, limits investments and other activities in which State banks may engage, as principal, to those permissible for national banks and those approved by the FDIC under procedures set forth in 12 CFR part 362 of the FDIC's Rules and Regulations. With certain exceptions, section 24 of the FDI Act limits the activities and investments of State banks to those activities and investments that are permissible for national banks. In addition, the statute prohibits a State bank from directly engaging, as a principal, in any activity or investment that is not permissible for a national bank, or indirectly through a subsidiary in an activity or investment that is not permissible for a subsidiary of a national bank, unless such bank meets its minimum capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity or investment does not pose a significant risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). The FDIC can make such a determination for exception by regulation or by order. Section 28(a), 12 U.S.C. 1831e, similarly limits the investments and activities of State savings associations and their service corporations to those permitted by Federal savings associations and their service corporations, absent FDIC approval. Part 362 details the activities that State banks or their subsidiaries may engage in, under certain criteria and conditions and identifies the information that State banks must furnish to the FDIC in order to obtain the FDIC's approval or non-objection. Part 362 also applies to the activities and investments of State savings associations and their subsidiaries. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The increase in burden hours from 232 hours in 2022 to 280 hours currently is the result of increasing the number of respondents and the number of responses per respondent to account for economic fluctuation.

4. Title: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information.

OMB Number: 3064-0136.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks and consumers.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The elements of this collection are required under sections 503 and 504 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6803, 6804. The collection mandates notice requirements and restrictions on a financial institution's ability to disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall decrease in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the determination that regulation P has de minimis burden on consumers to opt out.

5. Title: Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators.

OMB Number: 3064-0171.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: FDIC-supervised institutions and employee mortgage loan originators.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: This information collection implements the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (SAFE Act) requirement that employees of federally-regulated institutions who engage in the business of a mortgage loan originator to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry and establishes national licensing and registration requirements. It also directs federally-regulated institutions to have written policies and procedures in place to ensure that their employees who perform mortgage loan originations comply with the registration and other SAFE Act requirements. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The overall decrease in burden hours is the result of decreases in both the estimated number of FDIC-supervised institutions engaged in mortgage lending as well as the estimated number of mortgage loan originators employed at such institutions.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and 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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

1. Title: Procedures for Monitoring Bank Protection Act Compliance.

OMB Number: 3064-0095.

Form Number: None.

Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The collection implements recordkeeping requirements associated with the Bank Protection Act. The Bank Protection Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1881-1884) requires each Federal supervisory agency to promulgate rules establishing minimum standards for security devices and procedures to discourage financial crime and to assist in the identification of persons who commit such crimes. To avoid the necessity of constantly updating a technology-based regulation, the FDIC takes a flexible approach to implementing this statute. It requires each insured nonmember bank to designate a security officer who will administer a written security program. The security program must (1) establish procedures for opening and closing for business and for safekeeping valuables; (2) establish procedures that will assist in identifying persons committing crimes against the bank; (3) provide for initial and periodic training of employees in their responsibilities under the security program; and (4) provide for selecting, testing, operating and maintaining security devices as prescribed in the regulation. In addition, the FDIC requires the security officer to report at least annually to the bank's board of directors on the effectiveness of the security program. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The 9,670-hour decrease in burden is the result of the elimination of acquiring institutions as respondents, revisions to estimates of the time per response, as well as a decline in the number of FDIC-supervised institutions.

2. Title: Ombudsman Post-Examination Surveys.

OMB Number: 3064-0218.

Form Number: 6600/58; 6600/59.

Affected Public: FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions.

Burden Estimate:

General Description of Collection: The purpose of the surveys is to gauge bankers' views on the effectiveness and quality of FDIC Safety and Soundness and Consumer Compliance examinations, as well as to identify ways to improve the examination process. Respondents are asked to voluntarily rate the efficiency of the preexamination process; examiners' professionalism and understanding of the laws and regulations; the examination process; and examination report quality. Respondents will also be allowed to provide feedback on any areas for improvement and will be given an option to have someone from the FDIC Office of the Ombudsman contact the institution confidentially about its recent examination or any other matters. There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The 251-hour decrease in burden is the result of the reduction in the estimated annual number of respondents.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

I. Background

Over the previous two years, DHS has implemented programs through which inadmissible aliens who are citizens or nationals of designated countries, and their immediate family members, could request authorization to travel to the United States in order to be considered for parole into the country. 1 Under these categorical parole programs, potentially eligible beneficiaries were adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, for advance authorization to travel to a U.S. port of entry (“POE”) in the interior of the country to seek a discretionary grant of parole.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14165, “Securing Our Borders.”  2 Section 2 of the Order establishes a policy of the United States to take all appropriate action to secure the borders of our Nation through a range of means, including deterring and preventing the entry of illegal aliens into the United States, and removing promptly all aliens who enter or remain in violation of Federal law. Section 7 of the Order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to, consistent with applicable law, take all appropriate action to “[t]erminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in [the President's] Executive Orders, including the program known as the `Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.' ”

Consistent with the President's direction, and for the independent reasons stated in this notice, this notice terminates the CHNV parole programs. Although DHS established the categorical programs for each country through a separate notice in the Federal Register , the justification for the establishment of each of the four categorical programs was very similar, 3 and the rationale for termination is largely consistent for all four parole programs. Thus, DHS is announcing the termination of all four parole programs by publishing this single notice in the Federal Register .

The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) confers upon the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”) the narrow discretionary authority to parole inadmissible aliens into the United States “temporarily under such conditions as [DHS] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also 8 CFR 212.5(a) and (c) through (e) (discretionary authority for establishing conditions of parole and for terminating parole). Additionally, upon a finding by DHS that the purpose of the temporary, discretionary parole has been served, the alien is required to depart the United States “or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.” INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).

A review of the history of the parole authority supports the contention that discretionary parole determinations were intended by Congress to be narrowly tailored to specific instances and not based on a set of broadly applicable eligibility criteria. 4 Under the law, the determination to parole an alien into the country should only be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account each alien's unique circumstances. The ultimate determination whether to parole an alien into the United States upon the alien's arrival at a POE is made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers. See 8 CFR 212.5(a).

Parole is inherently temporary, and parole alone is not an underlying basis for obtaining any immigration status, nor does it constitute an admission to the United States. See INA 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A). Once an alien is paroled into the United States, the parole allows the alien to stay temporarily in the United States for the duration of the parole period unless and until the parole expires or is otherwise terminated. See 8 CFR 212.5(e).

Paroled aliens, including those paroled under the CHNV parole programs, may apply for any immigration benefit or status for which they may be eligible, including discretionary employment authorization under the (c)(11) employment eligibility category. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). In the absence of any subsequent application conferring an immigration benefit or status, and upon termination of parole, such alien will remain an arriving alien. See 8 CFR 1.2; see also INA 101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B).

When DHS established the CHNV parole programs, DHS provided several justifications for their promulgation. See, e.g., 88 FR at 1248-51 (Implementation of a Parole Process for Haitians). Overall, DHS stated that the programs would provide a significant public benefit for the United States and address the urgent humanitarian reasons underlying the high levels of migration from those countries.

With respect to the significant public benefit, DHS wrote that the CHNV parole programs would: (i) enhance border security by reducing illegal immigration between the POEs, (ii) minimize the domestic impact of high levels of illegal immigration by CHNV nationals, particularly in border communities; (iii) improve vetting for national security and public safety; (iv) reduce the strain on DHS personnel and resources; (v) disincentivize a dangerous journey that puts migrant lives and safety at risk and enriches smuggling networks; and (vi) fulfill important foreign policy goals to manage migration collaboratively in the hemisphere.

For the reasons discussed below, DHS has determined that it is now appropriate and necessary to terminate the CHNV parole programs. These programs do not serve a significant public benefit, are not necessary to reduce levels of illegal immigration, did not sufficiently mitigate the domestic effects of illegal immigration, are not serving their intended purposes, and are inconsistent with the Administration's foreign policy goals. 5 Regarding previous arguments or determinations that these programs were consistent with the requirement of “urgent humanitarian reasons” for granting parole, DHS believes that consideration of any urgent humanitarian reasons for granting parole is best addressed on a case-by-case basis consistent with the statute, and taking into consideration each alien's specific circumstances. These reasons, independently and cumulatively, support termination of the CHNV parole programs.

Accordingly, the Secretary, in her discretion, is terminating the CHNV parole programs. Consistent with her statutory authority, the Secretary retains discretion to continue to extend parole to any alien paroled under CHNV—temporarily under such conditions as she may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). The decision to do so, or not do so, is committed to the Secretary's sole discretion.

From the announcement of the parole program for Venezuelans and their immediate family members on October 12, 2022, through the subsequent addition of the programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and their immediate family members in January 2023, and until January 22, 2025, approximately 532,000 inadmissible aliens were granted advance authorization to travel to the United States and receive consideration for parole into the United States. 6

One justification for these 532,000 discretionary paroles was to “enhance border security” at the southwest border of the United States. 7 DHS reasoned that by “incentivizing individuals to seek a lawful, orderly means of traveling to the United States, while imposing consequences to irregular migration, . . . the new parole process will mitigate anticipated future surges” of illegal immigration. See, e.g., 88 FR at 1249 (Implementation of a Parole Process for Haitians). DHS pointed to past experience with rapidly increasing “encounters of Guatemalan and Honduran nationals from January 2021 until August 2021” along the southwest border, explaining that the resumption of repatriation flights to Guatemala and Honduras helped reduce the amount of illegal immigration but was insufficient to address the sheer numbers. 8 Accordingly, the CHNV parole programs contemplated enhancing border security by combining “a consequence for [nationals seeking] to enter the United States [in an unlawful manner between POEs ( i.e., removal or return to a third country, such as Mexico), while introducing] an incentive to use [a] lawful process to request authorization to travel by air to and enter the United States, without making the dangerous journey to the border.”  9

Upon review, DHS concludes that this “deterrent” and “incentive” approach did not result in a sufficient and sustained improvement in border security, and has exacerbated challenges associated with interior enforcement of the immigration laws. Encounters of CHNV nationals, particularly at POEs, remained unacceptably high while the CHNV parole programs were in effect, and overall migration of CHNV nationals to the United States increased between October 12, 2022 and January 22, 2025. In addition, the CHNV parole programs have at best traded an unmanageable population of unlawful migration along the southwest border for the additional complication of a substantial population of aliens in the interior of the United States without a clear path to a durable status.

As an initial matter, DHS acknowledges that in establishing the CHNV parole programs, and in subsequent DHS evaluations of these programs, DHS focused, in part, on a goal of reducing encounters of CHNV nationals between POEs. 10 And it is true that there was a reduction in encounters of CHNV nationals between POEs from FY 2022 through FY 2024—from around 600,000 encounters in FY 2022 to 416,000 in FY 2023 and 183,000 in FY 2024. 11 But in implementing the CHNV parole programs, DHS also focused on the importance of reducing pressures at the southwest border generally. It was for this reason that the CHNV parole programs required, for instance, that CHNV nationals “fly at their own expense to an interior [POE] rather than entering at a land POE”  12 and rendered ineligible those CHNV nationals who irregularly entered the United States, Mexico, or Panama after the programs' announcement. 13

Consistent with that focus and in light of the reality that DHS's border security mission involves activities at southwest border POEs as well, DHS has concluded that the present assessment of the efficacy of the CHNV parole programs should include encounters at such land POEs. If one includes encounters of CHNV nationals at POEs, the actual reduction in southwest border encounters of CHNV nationals is much more muted: encounters of CHNV nationals at and between southwest border POEs dropped from approximately 626,000 in FY 2022 only to 584,000 in FY 2023 and to 535,000 in FY 2024. 14 This is due to a significant increase in encounters of such aliens at southwest border POEs over that time period: from 26,250 in FY 2022 to 168,010 in FY 2023 and 352,790 in FY 2024. 15 The increase can be attributed to the use of the CBP One mobile application (“CBP One app” or “CBP One”) to schedule appointments at southwest border POEs, 16 which resulted in very high numbers of CHNV nationals placed into removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, (“section 240 removal proceedings”) and released into U.S. border communities, 17 exacerbating the immigration court backlog and the poor incentives that the backlog creates. 18 Finally, it is important to emphasize that in addition to these southwest border encounters, DHS must also consider the 532,000 parolees who entered the United States under the CHNV parole programs.

The decision to terminate the discretionary and temporary parole programs is further informed by the actions of the prior administration, which found the CHNV parole programs, even when paired with the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, to be insufficient to address very high levels of illegal immigration. 19 For example, DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) promulgated the Securing the Border framework  20 as an emergency measure to address ongoing high levels of unlawful immigration between southwest border POEs. 21 The Departments explained that “at the current levels of encounters and with current resources, [DHS] cannot predictably and swiftly deliver consequences to most noncitizens who cross the border without a lawful basis to remain . . . [DHS's] ability to refer and process noncitizens through expedited removal thus continues to be overwhelmed, creating a vicious cycle.”  22 This conclusion—that DHS's ability to swiftly impose consequences for illegal immigration “continue[d] to be overwhelmed”  23 —followed nearly two years of the CHNV parole programs, whose chief justification had been facilitating operational control of the southwest border of the United States. Promulgation of the Securing the Border interim final rule in June 2024 reflected the reality that the CHNV parole programs and Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule did not sufficiently enhance border security. 24

Finally, to whatever extent the CHNV parole programs could be characterized as reducing encounters of CHNV nationals at the southwest border from the very high levels that existed in late 2022, DHS does not believe that the programs are necessary to achieve such reductions at this time. In December 2022—the last full month prior to implementation of all four programs—the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) encountered around 84,000 CHNV nationals at the southwest border. 25 That figure has been below 12,000 every month since January 2024, and below 6,000 every month since June 2024, when DHS and DOJ issued the Securing the Border rule. 26 In January 2025, even with the CHNV parole programs paused, USBP encountered around 3,400 CHNV nationals at the southwest border. 27 Whatever the need for these programs may have been in late 2022, the situation at the southwest border now, and the set of tools implemented by DHS to deter illegal immigration, are quite different.

Moreover, with the implementation of President Trump's policies beginning on January 20, 2025, border encounters generally have continued to drop notwithstanding the ongoing pause on these programs. Southwest border encounters between POEs fell from an average of about 1,180 aliens per day in the two-week period ending on January 20, 2025, to an average of about 640 per day in the two-week period from January 21 to February 3, 2025, and fell further to an average just under 260 per day in the two-week period from February 12, 2025 to February 25, 2025. 28 Over those same three time periods, southwest border releases from USBP custody fell from an average of about 240 per day to an average of about 50 per day and then an average of fewer than 5 per day. 29

The need to break the “vicious cycle” of unlawful immigration supports this DHS action to terminate the CHNV parole programs in favor of new presidential directives that address the demand for enhanced border security beyond the 2024 Securing the Border framework. 30 Executive Order 14165, “Securing Our Borders,”  31 and Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,”  32 exemplify more reasoned and realistic initiatives to control unlawful immigration at the southwest border of the United States.

Although one goal of the CHNV parole programs was to “help minimize the burden on communities, state and local governments, and NGOs who support the reception and onward travel of arriving migrants at the SWB,” the programs did not have this effect. As discussed in the preceding section, overall levels of CHNV migration at and between southwest border POEs did not fall dramatically year-over-year in FY 2023 and FY 2024. In addition, if one takes into account the 532,000 parolees who entered the United States at an interior POE, CHNV migration may have increased over the relevant time period. Recent policy interventions have proven more effective than the CHNV parole programs in addressing very high levels of illegal immigration.

Over the past few years, there has been extensive public discussion of the effects of high levels of illegal immigration and inadmissible aliens arriving in local communities. Although public accounts of these effects do not always distinguish between aliens strictly on the basis of how they entered the country or their status ( e.g., CHNV parolees; aliens whom DHS encountered at a southwest border POE placed in section 240 removal proceedings; and aliens present without admission or parole), localities nationwide have experienced the effects of very high levels of migration. 33 CHNV parolees and other recent arrivals have competed for limited resources such as housing, food, transportation, education, legal services, and public benefits. 34 Some localities experienced surges of CHNV parolees in particular. 35

The domestic impact of the CHNV parole program was also felt at the Federal level in at least three ways. First, the CHNV parole programs resulted in expanded eligibility for Federal public benefits. This is because, for instance, an alien who is paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5) for a period of at least 1 year is considered a “qualified alien.” See 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(4). Because DHS generally issued two-year periods of parole from the outset, CHNV parolees generally were considered qualified aliens. Although qualified aliens are generally subject to a five-year waiting period before becoming eligible for certain Federal public benefits, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1613(a) (five-year waiting period for Federal means-tested public benefits); 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(L) (general five-year waiting period before a qualified alien can receive supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits), such waiting periods do not apply to all CHNV parolees with respect to all public benefit programs. For instance, a parolee under the age of 18 may be eligible for SNAP benefits, see 7 CFR 273.4(a)(6)(ii)(J), as might “a Cuban or Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980),” see 7 CFR 273.4(a)(6)(ii)(E). Similarly, some states have extended Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program benefits without a five-year waiting period to “lawfully residing” children and pregnant women, which includes an alien who is paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5) for a period of at least 1 year. 36

Second, the CHNV parole programs have exacerbated backlogs, or risked exacerbating backlogs, for the immigration system writ large. For example, the population of aliens paroled into the United States and who have filed an application for asylum contributes to an already taxed immigration system with historically high backlogs before USCIS and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”). 37 Many such parolees may not otherwise have come to the United States and have exacerbated such backlogs or are likely to eventually do so. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) recently reported that as of the end of December 2024, the USCIS asylum backlog had increased to over 1.4 million cases. 38 CHNV parolees account for approximately 75,000 affirmative asylum applications. 39 In addition, when a CHNV parolee's two-year parole period ends, if the CHNV parolee has no lawful basis to remain in the United States, DHS may place the alien in section 240 removal proceedings. But, due in part to the overwhelmed expedited removal system, EOIR's immigration court backlog has already been growing rapidly, and will be further strained by the initiation of additional removal proceedings for the CHNV parolee population once their parole period ends. The immigration court backlog increased by approximately 44 percent between the end of FY 2023 (2.5 million cases) and FY 2024 (3.6 million cases). 40

Third, the CHNV parole programs had a disruptive impact for CBP operations at interior air POEs. A progressive increase in beneficiaries of the CHNV parole programs arriving at POEs with advance travel authorizations “(ATAs”) were ultimately not granted parole due to CBP's determination that the alien did not warrant a discretionary grant of parole, for instance due to evidence of fraud or confirmation that the alien was a citizen or resident of a non-CHNV country. As a result, CBP processed these aliens for another appropriate disposition under Title 8, including detention or referral into expedited removal proceedings or section 240 removal proceedings, as appropriate. This caused further processing delays and coordination with air carriers for return flights when appropriate, and further contributed to the immigration court backlog.

The overwhelmed immigration systems in particular may incentivize aliens to enter the United States, without regard to the strength of any potential claims for immigration status, as aliens who are subject to expedited removal may nevertheless be placed in section 240 removal proceedings when the system is strained beyond its processing capacity. As a result, many remain in the United States until their immigration benefit requests are adjudicated or their section 240 removal proceedings conclude and any resultant removal order is executed. Any further strain to the immigration systems resulting from aliens pursuing the CHNV parole programs exacerbates these detrimental incentives.

In short, the domestic impact of the CHNV parole programs do not warrant continuing to operate these programs. Implementation of these programs coincided with an overall increase in CHNV migration, significant pressures on localities throughout the country, an expansion of public benefits eligibility, and a further exacerbation of USCIS and immigration court backlogs.

One of the stated goals of the CHNV parole programs was to promote the foreign policy objectives of the prior administration. Indeed, DHS explained repeatedly in its notices promulgating the CHNV parole programs that their implementation would advance the foreign policy objectives of the then-current administration. 41 The foreign policy objectives underlying the CHNV parole programs, however, are not consistent with those of the current Administration.

Executive Order 14150, “America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State” (Jan. 20, 2025) clearly sets out the President's vision that “the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.”  42 Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” (Jan. 20, 2025) states that it is the policy of the United States to “faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people.” Further, it is the policy of the United States to achieve the “total and efficient enforcement of those laws, including through lawful incentives and detention capabilities.”  43

Whereas implementation of the CHNV parole programs was contingent upon the Government of Mexico (“GOM”) making an independent decision to accept the return or removal of CHNV nationals who migrated illegally, the U.S. Government is pursuing a range of other policy initiatives that would allow DHS to return, remove, or deter the illegal migration of CHNV nationals and other aliens. Section 13 of that Executive Order 14159 specifically addresses repatriation, and directs the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to take all appropriate action to cooperate and effectively implement, as appropriate, the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), and ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include the foreign states' acceptance of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States. Section 13 further directs the Secretaries to eliminate all documentary barriers, dilatory tactics, or other restrictions that prevent the prompt repatriation of aliens to any foreign state. The Order provides that any failure or delay by a foreign state to verify the identity of a national of that state shall be considered in carrying out section 243(d) sanctions and shall also be considered regarding the issuance of any other sanctions that may be available to the United States.

Further, as noted above, Executive Order 14165, “Securing Our Borders” states that DHS shall “terminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States established in [the President's] Executive Orders, including the program known as the `Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.' ”  44 In the same Order, the President directed that as soon as practicable, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to resume the Migrant Protection Protocols in all sectors along the southern border of the United States and ensure that, pending section 240 removal proceedings, aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)) are returned to the territory from which they came.

The President has pursued the cooperation of foreign partners in other ways as well. For instance:

• On January 23, 2025, President Trump in his call with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele discussed working together to stop illegal immigration and crack down on transnational gangs like Tren de Aragua. 45

• On January 26, 2025, the Government of Colombia agreed to the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay. 46

• On January 27, 2025, President Trump had a productive conversation with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who agreed to “do what's right” in regard to illegal migration. 47

• Beginning on February 1, 2025, President Trump has issued a number of tariff-related executive orders in connection with the situation at the southern border. 48

• On February 16, 2025, Panama received a first U.S. military plane transporting 119 deportees of various nationalities, who will then be repatriated to their own respective countries. Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino has offered his country as a stopover for aliens expelled from the United States. 49

Multiple agencies of the U.S. Government are actively pursuing the President's foreign policy goals. For instance, the Department of State has announced multiple discussions with neighboring countries regarding DHS's ability to remove or return illegal aliens, 50 consistent with Secretary of State Rubio's January 22, 2025 announcement that a key priority of the Department of State is to curb mass migration and secure our borders. 51 In that announcement, the Department of State made clear that it “will no longer undertake any activities that facilitate or encourage mass migration” and that “[o]ur diplomatic relations with other countries, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, will prioritize securing America's borders, stopping illegal and destabilizing migration, and negotiating the repatriation of illegal immigrants.”  52 Additionally, pursuant to his authority under section 219 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1189, 53 Secretary of State Rubio designated the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, along with other cartels and gangs, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. 54

In other words, in addition to directly fulfilling the President's directive to terminate the CHNV parole programs, this action complements and underscores the Administration's pivot to a foreign policy that prioritizes the United States' interests in a secure border. Regardless of whether the prior Administration saw the CHNV parole programs as a component of a regional migration management strategy, the current Administration is not pursuing that strategy. Rather, as described above, the current Administration has focused its foreign policy attention on other measures to deter and prevent the entry of illegal aliens into the United States and obtain complete operational control of our borders.

These measures will allow DHS to better “achieve the total and efficient enforcement” of U.S. immigration law and, as such, champion a core American interest in accordance with the President's vision for American foreign policy. 55 In short, the continued implementation of the CHNV parole programs no longer accords with the President's stated priorities and foreign policy objectives.

The other factors cited by DHS in promulgating the CHNV parole programs also do not counsel in favor of maintaining the programs. For instance:

• DHS predicted that by allowing DHS to vet aliens before they travel to the United States, the programs would enhance national security as compared to high levels of illegal immigration. But as discussed above, these programs are unnecessary to counter high levels of illegal immigration. In addition, and critically, such vetting is inherently limited and, as has been reported publicly, there were significant gaps in the vetting process. In response to these problems, the CHNV parole programs were paused briefly in July 2024 to evaluate the program vulnerabilities. 56

The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary.

Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if those regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut.

The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal Government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities apply with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal Government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.

Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 5108, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). Similarly, section 5108 preempts State taxation of rent payments by a lessee for leased trust lands because “tax on the payment of rent is indistinguishable from an impermissible tax on the land.” See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, 799 F.3d 1324, 1331, n.8 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of “traditional notions of Indian self-government,” requires a particularized examination of the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72447-48, as supplemented by the analysis below.

The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” H. Rep. 112-427 at 6 (2012).

Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination and would threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782, 810 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that “[a] key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on Federal funding”). The additional costs of State and local taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own sovereign right to impose a Tribal tax to support its infrastructure needs. See id. at 810-11 (finding that State and local taxes greatly discourage Tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources because the imposition of double taxation would impede Tribal economic growth).

Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C. 415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal regulations be consistent with BIA surface leasing regulations). Furthermore, the Federal Government remains involved in the Tribal land leasing process by approving the Tribal leasing regulations in the first instance and providing technical assistance, upon request by a Tribe, for the development of an environmental review process. The Secretary also retains authority to take any necessary actions to remedy violations of a lease or of the Tribal regulations, including terminating the lease or rescinding approval of the Tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve, and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not covered under the Tribal regulations according to 25 CFR part 162.

Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or 25 CFR part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut.

The Commission instituted this investigation on February 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“SDC” or “Complainant”) of the Republic of Korea. 88 FR 7,463-64 (Feb. 3, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and modules for mobile devices, and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1-5 and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 (“the '803 patent”); claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (“the '683 patent”); claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 (“the '599 patent”); and claims 1-3, 6-8, and 14-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593 (“the '593 patent”). Id. The complaint further alleged that a domestic industry exists. Id. The notice of investigation named the following parties as respondents: Injured Gadgets, LLC (“Injured Gadgets”) of Norcross, Georgia; Wholesale Gadget Parts, Inc. (“Wholesale Gadget Parts”) of Bixby, Oklahoma; Phone LCD Parts LLC and Parts4LCD (collectively, “Phone LCD Parts”) of Wayne, New Jersey; Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix of Chantilly, Virginia; Mobile Defenders, LLC of Caledonia, Michigan; Group Vertical, LLC (“Group Vertical”) of Grand Rapids, Michigan; Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Fixez.com and Electronics Universe, Inc. d/b/a Repairs Universe, Inc. (“Electronics Universe”) of Las Vegas, Nevada; LCTech International Inc. d/b/a SEGMobile.com (“LCTech”) of City of Industry, California; Sourcely Plus, LLC (“Sourcely Plus”) of Tempe, Arizona; eTech Parts Plus LLC (“eTech Parts Plus”) of Southlake, Texas; Parts4Cells Inc. (“Parts4Cells”) of Houston, Texas; Captain Mobile Parts, Inc. (“Captain Mobile Parts”) of Dallas, Texas; DFW Imports LLC d/b/a DFW Cellphone and Parts (“DFW Imports”) of Dallas, Texas; Mengtor Inc. (“Mengtor”) of El Monte, California; and Gadgetfix Corp. (“Gadgetfix”) of Irvine, California. Id. The notice of investigation also named the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) as a party. Id.

On March 22, 2023, the Commission granted Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.'s (“BOE”) unopposed motion to intervene as a respondent in this investigation. Order No. 7 (Mar. 15, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Mar. 22, 2023).

Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile Defenders, LLC, were terminated based on a consent order. Order No. 43 (Dec. 20, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 18, 2024). Ten respondents, Captain Mobile Parts, Group Vertical, Sourcely Plus, Mengtor, Electronics Universe, LCTech, Parts4Cells, DFW Imports, Gadgetfix, and eTech Parts Plus were found in default. Order No. 16 (May 10, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (June 7, 2023); Order No. 22 (Jun. 27, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (July 20, 2023); Order No. 25 (Jul. 19, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 18, 2023); Order No. 27 (Aug. 8, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Aug. 30, 2023). Accordingly, respondents Injured Gadgets, Wholesale Gadget Parts, and Phone LCD Parts (collectively, “the BLF Respondents”) and BOE remain active in the investigation.

On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted SDC's motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement related to claims 1-6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21-23, 40-47, and 51-52 of the '578 patent. Order No. 8 (Mar. 28, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Apr. 20, 2023). When the final ID issued, only claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 2-3, 13, and 15-16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent remain asserted in the investigation as a result of termination of all asserted claims of the '683 patent and certain other asserted claims. See Order No. 34 (Oct. 26, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Nov. 27, 2024), Order No. 39 (Dec. 7, 2023), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 8, 2024), Order No. 51 (Jun. 14, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jul. 3, 2024), Order No. 65 (Aug. 27, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Sept. 26, 2024).

On November 15, 2023, the BLF Respondents and BOE (collectively, “Respondents”) moved for summary determination that SDC lacked standing to bring and maintain this investigation. Respondents argued because SDC's parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), “has an unfettered right to grant licenses, SDC lacks the exclusionary rights necessary to prove standing.” Mot. at 18. Finding that “there is no genuine issue of material fact that SEC has an unrestricted right to sublicense the Asserted Patents to others” and that SEC's possession of such a right divested SDC of exclusionary rights, on January 9, 2024, the ALJ granted Respondents' motion for summary determination of no violation due to lack of standing. Order No. 44 at 13, 24-25 (Jan. 9, 2024).

On April 24, 2024, the Commission vacated that initial determination and remanded the investigation for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In its opinion, the Commission found that “(1) constitutional standing, the Article III requirements of the Constitution related to the authority of federal courts to adjudicate lawsuits, is not required at [the] Commission; and (2) there are genuine issues of material facts relating to [Complainant's] rights in the asserted patents.” Comm'n Op. at 2. The Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ to “conduct further proceedings as appropriate and consistent with the Commission's opinion herewith.” Id.

On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case management conference to discuss how the case would proceed on remand. Respondent BOE indicated that it wished to argue that SDC lacked “all substantial rights” to the asserted patents when it filed its complaint and that it wished to pursue discovery from SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3 (June 11, 2024). SDC responded that a statutory cause of action defense had never previously been raised and thus was waived. Id. at 5. OUII noted that “Respondents' argument that [SDC] may not have owned the asserted patents when it filed the complaint because it did not hold all substantial rights is fundamentally different from the argument advanced in Respondents' motion for summary determination.” Id. The ALJ then ordered “additional briefing” on “the effect of the Commission opinion on th[e] Investigation.” Order No. 47, EDIS Doc. ID 820416, at 1 (May 3, 2024). Following a teleconference and briefing on remand, the ALJ found that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked “all substantial rights” to the Asserted Patents and thus failed to satisfy the requirement of Commission Rule 210.12(a)(7) because Respondents did not address this issue in their prehearing brief, as required by the ALJ's Ground Rules. ID at 4 (citing Order No. 50 at 4).

The evidentiary hearing was held on July 8-9, 2024, and July 15-17, 2024.

On November 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a final ID, finding no violation of section 337 because SDC failed to show the existence of a domestic industry, among other reasons. In particular, the ID found: (1) SDC met its burden under Rule 210.12(a)(7); (2) SDC failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all asserted patents; (3) SDC satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '803, the '578, and the '599 patents but not for the '593 patent; (4) at least one representative accused product infringes claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 15-16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent but not claims 2-3 and 13 of the '599 patent; and (5) the claims have not been shown to be invalid.

On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a petition for review of the ID challenging certain findings related to the '803, the '578, and the '599 patents, including the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. SDC did not petition for review of the ID's findings related to the '593 patent. That same day, Respondent BOE and the BLF Respondents filed a joint contingent petition for review. OUII did not file a petition for review. On December 9, 2024, Complainant, Respondents, and OUII each filed a response to the petitions.

The Commission solicited submissions from the public on the public interest issues raised by the recommended determination. 89 FR 92721 (Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission received comments from Representative John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, and Dr. Robert D. Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice of supplemental authority to apprise the Commission of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decisions in inter partes review proceedings on the '578 patent and the '803 patent. In the final written decisions, the Board found claim 21 of the '803 patent unpatentable and all other asserted claims of the '578 and '803 patents at issue in this investigation had not been proven unpatentable. See Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-00987, Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 2025); Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., IPR2023-01075, Final Written Decision (Jan. 6, 2025).

On January 16, 2025, the Commission determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) the ID's findings that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate Complainant SDC's alleged violation under section 337 and that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12; (2) the ID's findings related to the technical prong for the '803 patent; and (3) the ID's findings regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. 90 FR 8,034-036 (Jan. 23, 2024). The Commission determined not to review any other findings presented in the final ID, including the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the '593 patent. The Commission requested briefing from the parties on certain issues under review and on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The parties filed their opening written submissions on January 30, 2025, and their responsive written submissions on February 6, 2025.

On review, the Commission has found no violation of section 337 with respect to claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent; claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent; and claims 2-3, 13, and 15-16 of the '599 patent. Specifically, the Commission has determined to affirm the ALJ's finding that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate Complainant's alleged violation under section 337. The Commission has also determined to affirm the ID's finding that representative display panels in the asserted domestic industry products practice claim 21 of the '803 patent. The Commission has further determined to affirm with modified reasoning the ID's finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry under sections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B). Based on this dispositive finding, the Commission has determined to take no position on whether the asserted domestic industry products also practice claim 5 of the '803 patent and whether Respondents forfeited their argument that Complainant is not the owner of the Asserted Patents under Commission Rule 210.12(a)(7).

Accordingly, the investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation. The Commission's reasoning in support of its determinations is set forth more fully in its opinion issued concurrently herewith.

The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 19, 2025.

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).

Background. —On November 4, 2024, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review should proceed (89 FR 96681, December 5, 2024); accordingly, a full review is being scheduled pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's website.

Participation in the review and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS, https://edis.usitc.gov ). No in-person paper-based filings or paper copies of any electronic filings will be accepted until further notice.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Staff report. —The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on July 29, 2025, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

Hearing. —The Commission will hold an in-person hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on August 14, 2025. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before 5:15 p.m. on August 8, 2025. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the review, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/calendarpad/calendar.html.

A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 12, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on August 13, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. —Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is 5:15 p.m. on August 7, 2025. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on August 26, 2025. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before 5:15 p.m. on August 26, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before 5:15 p.m. on September 26, 2025, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's “Handbook on Filing Procedures”, available on the Commission's website at https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates upon the Commission's procedures with respect to filings.

Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (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.

The Commission has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

Abstract: The Controlled Substances Act requires all businesses and individuals who manufacture, distribute, import, export, and conduct research and laboratory analysis with controlled substances to register with DEA. 21 U.S.C. 822, 21 CFR 1301.11 and 1301.13. Registration is a necessary control measure and helps to prevent diversion by ensuring the closed system of distribution of controlled substances can be monitored by DEA and the businesses and individuals handling controlled substances are qualified to do so and are accountable.

1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a previously approved collection.

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Registration—DEA Form 225, Application for Registration Renewal—DEA Form 225a, Affidavit for Chain Removal—DEA Form 225b.

3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form numbers are DEA Forms 225, 225a, and 225b. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as the obligation to respond:

Affected Public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.

Affected Public (Other): Not-for-Profit institutions, Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.

5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The DEA estimates that 16,560 registrants participate in this information collection. The time per response is 25 minutes to complete the DEA Form 225 (new), 10 minutes to complete DEA Form 225a (renewal), and 1 hour to complete DEA Form 225b (chain renewal).

6. An estimate of the total annual burden (in hours) associated with the collection: DEA estimates that this collection takes 3,323 annual burden hours.

7. An estimate of the total annual cost burden associated with the collection, if applicable: $0.

If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.

The NRC has received, by letter, an application from American Centrifuge Operating, LLC, dba ACO, to amend SNM-2011 for the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP), located in Piketon, Ohio. This LAR proposes to account for continuing high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) production operations for the 16-operating centrifuge cascade at the ACP for three 3-year optional periods (9 years in total, Phase III) beyond the NRC's current authorization expiration date of June 30, 2025. The nominal rate of production for the 16-operating HALEU cascade is 900 kg HALEU UF 6 .

As documented in an administrative completeness review, dated February 10, 2025, the NRC found the application, acceptable for a technical review. Prior to reaching a decision on the request to amend Materials License SNM-2011, the NRC will need to conduct a review and make a determination in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's regulations. During the technical review, the NRC will review the application, as supplemented, in areas that include, but are not limited to, security, environmental protection and financial aspects associated with the contract between ACO and the Department of Energy for Phase III. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).

A State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 ( https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML20340A053 ) and on the NRC public website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html#participate.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. After a digital ID certificate is obtained and a docket created, the participant must submit adjudicatory documents in Portable Document Format. Guidance on submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed to obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as previously described, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants should not include copyrighted materials in their submission.

A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).

B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, respectively. 1 The request must include the following information:

(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and

(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.

D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3), the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order  2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.

F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.

G. Review of Denials of Access.

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.

H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within five days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 3

I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

It is so ordered.

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0040, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-0040.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time (ET), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-0040, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject, in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

Pursuant to section 189a(1)-(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves NSHC, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This notice includes a notice of an amendment containing SUNSI.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment request involves NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for the amendment request is shown as follows.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on the amendment prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the Federal Register . If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination for the amendment, any hearing on this amendment will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 ( https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML20340A053 ) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html#participate.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. After a digital ID certificate is obtained and a docket created, the participant must submit adjudicatory documents in Portable Document Format. Guidance on submissions is available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed to obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as previously described, click “cancel” when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing docket where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants should not include copyrighted materials in their submission.

The following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensee's proposed NSHC determination. For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment, publicly available portions of which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).

B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.

C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov and RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov, respectively. 1 The request must include the following information:

(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this Federal Register notice;

(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and

(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.

D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:

(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and

(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.

E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order  2 setting forth terms and conditions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of SUNSI by each individual who will be granted access to SUNSI.

F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.

G. Review of Denials of Access.

(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite need, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.

(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within five days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.

H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.

If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311. 3

I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.

It is so ordered.

Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Public Proceeding(s) III. Summary Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

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 ( https://www.prc.gov ). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3011.301. 1

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). 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. See 39 CFR 3041.110(n); 39 CFR 3041.205(a). Such requests are reviewed in summary proceedings pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.325(c)(2) and 39 CFR 3041.505(f)(1). Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405(c)-(d), the Commission does not appoint a Public Representative or request public comment in proceedings to review such requests.

1. Docket No(s).: MC2025-1241 and K2025-1240; Filing Title: USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage Contract 1348 to the Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing Materials Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: March 19, 2025; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR 3035.105, and 39 CFR 3041.310; Public Representative: Christopher Mohr; Comments Due: March 27, 2025.

None. See Section II for public proceedings.

For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' First Amended and Restated Application, dated March 17, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at, https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch. You may also call the SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy at (202) 551-8090.

Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal https://lending.sba.gov or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at disastercustomerservice@sba.gov or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance.

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 20991C and for economic injury is 209920.

The States which received an EIDL Declaration are Texas.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120-0601.

Title: License Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site.

Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

Background: This collection is applicable upon concurrence of requests for conducting commercial launch operations as prescribed in 14 CFR parts 401 et al., Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulation. A commercial space launch services provider must complete the Launch Operators License, Launch-Specific License or Experimental Permit to gain authorization for conducting commercial launch operations.

The information will be collected per 14 CFR part 440 appendix A. A permit or license applicant is required to provide the FAA information to conduct maximum probable loss determination. Also, it is a mandatory requirement that all commercial permitted and licensed launch applicants obtain financial coverage for claims by a third party for bodily injury or property damage. FAA is responsible for determining the amount of financial responsibility required using maximum probable loss determination. The financial responsibility must be in place and active for every launch activity. Applicants' launched activity can vary, on average, from once a week to once a year. If there are any significant changes to the launch vehicle that potentially could modify the results of the financial responsibility determined, the permitted and licensed applicant must provide updated information to the FAA. The FAA will use the updated collected information and revise the financial responsibility results.

The following is summary of the information required to conduct an MPL:

1. Mission description including: launch trajectory, orbital inclination; and orbit altitudes (apogee and perigee).

2. Flight sequence.

3. Staging events and the time for each event.

4. Impact locations.

5. Identification of the launch site facility, including the launch complex on the site, planned date of launch, and launch windows.

6. Launch vehicle descriptions including: general description of the launch vehicle and its stages, including dimensions; description of major systems, including safety systems.

Description of rocket motors and type of fuel used; and identification of all propellants to be used and their hazard classification under the hazardous materials.

7. Payload.

8. Flight safety system.

Respondents: Approximately 10 applicants.

Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,000 hours.

FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2020-0101), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number (FMCSA-2020-0101) in keyword box, and click on this notice, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this notice.

To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov insert FMCSA-2020-0101 in the keyword box, select the document tab and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this notice, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed under the “Department Wide System of Records Notices” at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edit and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including the applicant's safety analyses. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The Agency must publish the decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If granted, the notice will identify the regulatory provision from which the applicant will be exempt and the effective period and will explain all terms and conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR 381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Currently, 49 CFR 382.701(a)(2) requires that employers must not employ a driver subject to the testing requirements of 49 CFR part 382 without first conducting a pre-employment full query of the Clearinghouse. A full query allows the employer to see any information that exists about a driver in the Clearinghouse. An employer must obtain the driver's specific consent, provided electronically through the Clearinghouse, prior to the release of detailed information in response to the full query.

By contrast, a limited query allows an employer to determine whether the Clearinghouse contains any information about the driver but does not release any specific information about the driver. Limited queries require only a driver's general consent, which is obtained and retained outside the Clearinghouse and may be in written or electronic form. Under 49 CFR 382.701(b)(2), an employer may conduct a limited query in lieu of a full query when satisfying the annual query requirement for current driver-employees. However, if the response to a limited query indicates there is information about the driver in the Clearinghouse, the employer must conduct a full query, after obtaining the driver's specific consent, within 24 hours, as required by 49 CFR 382.701(b)(3). If the full query is not conducted within the 24-hour period, or shows that the driver is prohibited from operating a CMV, the employer must not permit the driver to continue to perform safety-sensitive functions.

On February 4, 2020, in response to a request from DECS, FMCSA issued DECS a three-month waiver from 49 CFR 382.701(a)(2) on behalf of its members that employ CDL holders subject to drug and alcohol testing under 49 CFR part 382. On June 1, 2020, FMCSA granted DECS a five-year exemption from 49 CFR 382.701(a)(2), which indicates that DECS would likely achieve a level of safety obtained by complying with the regulation (85 FR 33274). The exemption will expire on May 28, 2025.

DECS has requested an additional five-year renewal of its exemption from 49 CFR 382.701(a)(2) on behalf of its members that employ CDL holders subject to drug and alcohol testing under 49 CFR part 382. DECS' members employ drivers providing transportation services to or from theatrical, commercial, television, or motion picture production sites. Renewal of the exemption would allow DECS to continue to conduct a limited query of the Clearinghouse before one of its member employers hires a driver for a project. If the limited query indicates that information about the driver exists in the Clearinghouse, the driver would not be permitted to perform safety-sensitive functions unless and until a full query subsequently shows that the driver is not prohibited from operating a CMV. DECS, serving as a Consortium/Third-party Administrator (C/TPA) for its member employers, requests, obtains, and retains limited query general consent forms from drivers. A copy of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on DECS' application for an exemption renewal. All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.

The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).

FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.

The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:

Title: Railroad Workplace Safety.

OMB Control Number: 2130-0539.

Abstract: FRA collects a variety of information associated with 49 CFR part 214, Railroad Workplace Safety. To ensure compliance with part 214, FRA collects data on affected railroads' on-track safety programs to determine that railroads have policies, procedures, and practices in place that protect roadway workers from dangers in their work environment. Railroads are required to provide on-track safety manuals to all roadway workers that they can readily consult to determine what on-track safety procedures are required for their work assignment. Under the regulation, railroads are required to provide initial and recurrent training to roadway workers on their on-track safety program. This includes training for roadway workers who work where on-track safety for adjacent controlled tracks is required, and the appropriate practices and procedures they must follow.

FRA collects data from railroads on training through the records that they are required to keep. Additionally, FRA collects information on violations of workplace safety regulations on Form FRA F 6180.119. FRA uses violation information to support actions that will reduce or eliminate hazards to railroad workers. Specifically, FRA uses the information that it collects, under this regulation, to monitor and enforce requirements relating to the safety of roadway workers and ensure that railroads fulfill their responsibilities to keep roadway workers secure and free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards.

In this 60-day notice, FRA has made multiple adjustments to estimated paperwork burdens. FRA's estimate of all burden hours under this ICR has increased from 5,619 hours to 13,604 hours, and the number of estimated responses has increased from 105,751 to 290,698. The main reason for these increases is the inclusion of an existing recordkeeping requirement under § 214.337(f), detailed below. FRA also determined that several of the paperwork burdens reported in its previous submission were overestimated and some were determined to be unnecessary under the PRA as detailed below:

• Under § 214.307, On-track safety programs, FRA made burden estimate adjustments to reflect that most railroads have completed this requirement, and to account for the number of times FRA receives notifications from railroads with respect to any amendments made to their current safety programs or from new railroad startups. Specifically, FRA estimates two new railroad startups will submit on-track safety programs each year. In addition, FRA expects to receive approximately 25 notifications of amendments to existing on-track safety programs from established railroads. Consequently, the burden estimate for this requirement has decreased from 679 burden hours to 37 burden hours.

• § 214.336, On-track safety procedures for certain roadway work groups and adjacent tracks. After a thorough review, FRA found that this requirement is not a collection of information under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Therefore, 28 estimated burden hours associated with this requirement were removed from this ICR.

• Under § 214.337(f), On-track safety procedures for lone workers, it was determined that the burden was not included in FRA's previously reported submissions. This submission corrects that oversight, adding 10,400 burden hours.

• Under paragraph (c) of § 214.505, Required environmental control and protection systems for new on-track roadway maintenance machines with enclosed cabs, the average burden associated with the list of designated on-track roadway maintenance machines was decreased from 1 hour to 5 minutes. The decrease in burden hours reflects that, with the exception of startups, railroads should have already developed these designated lists and, therefore, only need to maintain and update them as appropriate.

• Additionally, the previously reported burden of 13 hours under § 214.505(d), related to existing roadway maintenance machines identified as “designated,” has been removed from this ICR because the regulatory requirement does not cause the collection of any information.

• A review of the number of FRA F 6180.119 forms, submitted over the last four and a half years, showed that on average only six forms were submitted annually. Therefore, the burden hours associated with this requirement were decreased by 492 hours.

• Finally, the overall recordkeeping burden hours have decreased from 3,387 hours to 2,953 hours. This decrease is due to the reduced number of roadway workers employed with the railroads.

Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in estimates) of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses, Roadway Workers, State Safety Inspectors.

Form(s): FRA F 6180.119.

Respondent Universe: 800 Railroads, 200 Contractors, 43,000 Roadway Workers and 350 State Inspectors.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Annual Responses: 290,698.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 13,604 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Dollar Cost Equivalent: 966,583.

FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

PSMS provides a proactive and systematic approach to risk management of complex processes across the pipeline organization to operate safely and to improve safety performance. PSMS also provides a scalable framework for pipeline operators of varying size, scope, and level of PSMS implementation maturity. PHMSA encourages pipeline operators to develop and to implement PSMS programs, using a framework such as the one detailed in American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1173: Pipeline Safety Management Systems (API RP 1173). The framework should define the elements for identifying, managing, and reducing risks throughout the pipeline life cycle. Issuance of this advisory bulletin is consistent with section 205 of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260), 1 which directs the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to “promote” the implementation of pipeline safety management systems by pipeline operators. It also addresses the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Safety Recommendation P-24-002.

A safety management system (SMS) is an organization-wide approach to managing safety risk through systematic procedures, practices, and policies. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines SMS as a “formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls. It includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for the management of safety risk.”  2 In the pipeline community, SMS is similarly described as a “systematic approach to managing safety, including the structures, policies, and procedures an organization uses to direct and control its activities.”  3

NTSB has long advocated for PSMS implementation by the pipeline industry. After investigating two serious accidents in 2010, NTSB found that pipeline safety would be enhanced if pipeline companies implemented SMSs. The first accident occurred on July 25, 2010, when a 30-inch pipeline ruptured in Marshall, Michigan, resulting in the estimated release of 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. The second accident occurred on September 9, 2010, when a natural gas transmission pipeline ruptured in San Bruno, California, killing eight people, injuring many more, and destroying 38 homes.

NTSB issued Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-12/01 following its investigation of the former accident. 4 In discussing the benefits of applying SMS to pipeline systems, NTSB stated:

Having reached these conclusions, NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-12-17 advising API to “facilitate the development of a safety management system standard specific to the pipeline industry that is similar in scope to [API's] Recommended Practice 750, Management of Process Hazards.” API responded by forming a multi-stakeholder work group, including PHMSA representatives, to develop a PSMS recommended practice, and that effort ultimately led to the issuance of API RP 1173 (1st edition) on July 8, 2015.

In response to API RP 1173, the pipeline industry formed a PSMS Industry Team (PSMS Team) to educate stakeholders and to enhance safe pipeline operations through the implementation and use of PSMSs. 6 The PSMS Team developed various tools that pipeline operators could use as guidelines to assist in planning, developing, and implementing PSMSs. Since the issuance of API RP 1173 in 2015, PHMSA, States, various industry associations, and other stakeholders have encouraged voluntary implementation of PSMS across the pipeline industry. In its 2023 Annual Report, the PSMS Team indicated that nearly 85 percent of total pipeline industry mileage is covered by PSMS. 7 Information obtained from a 2023 PHMSA voluntary information collection to determine how many gas distribution operators are implementing PSMSs indicated that about 86 percent of all gas distribution pipeline mileage is operated by companies that have begun implementing PSMSs voluntarily. 8

In January 2024, NTSB issued Safety Recommendation P-24-002 to PHMSA in response to a pipeline release that occurred on October 1, 2021, in San Pedro Bay in California. In that safety recommendation, NTSB advised PHMSA to “[i]ssue an advisory bulletin to all Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-regulated pipeline owners and operators, promoting the benefits of pipeline safety management systems and asking them to develop and implement such a system based on American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 1173.”  9 NTSB stated that “the implementation of a robust PSMS program would have helped” the operator of the ruptured pipeline “comply with regulations, ensure employees were following company procedures, and better prepare personnel to respond and react to the conditions found during this release.”  10 NTSB concluded that had a PSMS been in place, the operator “may have further evaluated their operations, identified continuous improvement opportunities, and better positioned their staff to respond and react to a leak.”  11

In July 2024, NTSB issued a Safety Alert, “Pipeline Safety Management Systems: Vital for the Safe Operation of Pipelines.”  12 In that safety alert, NTSB noted it found that: (1) “pipeline safety would be enhanced if companies implemented [PSMS];” (2) “[a]lthough PSMS have been adopted by operators representing 85 percent of industry pipeline mileage, many operators, particularly smaller operators, have not yet adopted PSMS;” (3) “[t]he pipeline industry continues to have accidents that could have been prevented or the consequences more effectively mitigated had risks been more thoroughly identified and addressed;” and (4) “[w]ithout full commitment from the pipeline industry to implement and mature PSMS, pipeline accidents will continue to occur and the industry will not be able to meet their goal of zero accidents, fatalities, and serious injuries.”  13

NTSB further noted that pipeline operators can: (1) “[i]mplement a robust PSMS as described in API RP 1173. API RP 1173 Pipeline Safety Management System requirements provide guidance for operators to establish a system to continuously track and improve safety”; (2) “[f]or those who have incorporated PSMS into their practices, continue to improve operations and training. Pipeline operators with PSMS cannot be complacent. One of the hallmarks of a good PSMS is that it continuously evolves and improves safety programs”; (3) “[s]upport revisions to API RP 1173 and other guidance as it is developed to include small operators and contractors in their efforts to establish a PSMS. According to the 2022 Pipeline SMS Annual Report, `Last year also featured important initiatives to support small operator and contractor implementation of RP 1173 along their journey of continuous improvement and the combined vision of One Industry, One Team, One Mission, Pipeline Safety' ”; and (4) “[w]ith a PSMS, operators can ensure pipelines are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a way that complies with more than the minimum safety standards found in regulations. Experience has shown that using a PSMS can be effective and result in significant reductions of serious pipeline accidents each year.”  14

Section 205 of the PIPES Act of 2020 directed the Secretary to submit to Congress a report describing the progress of gas distribution pipeline operators with respect to implementation of API RP 1173 and the feasibility of natural gas distribution system operators implementing PSMS based on the size of the operator. Section 205 further directed the Secretary and the State authorities with a certification in effect to promote and to assess pipeline safety management system frameworks developed by operators of natural gas distribution systems. PHMSA is delegated with carrying out this mandate.

PHMSA submitted that report to Congress on August 2, 2024. The report concluded, among other things, that:

Major pipeline accidents with serious consequences are rare in this country; but, when they occur, they are generally because of an alignment of weaknesses or failures across multiple activities. To manage the safety of complex processes involved in the design, installation, operation, and maintenance throughout the life cycle of a pipeline, coordinated actions to address multiple dynamic activities and circumstances are required. PSMS, coupled with a strong safety culture, enables operators to identify and to analyze hazards proactively and to manage the associated risks to prevent harm to people and the environment, and, ultimately, to reach both PHMSA's and the industry's goal of zero incidents.

PHMSA believes that it is in the best interest of safety that operators build and maintain a strong safety culture. A pipeline operator's culture comprises, among other things, the everyday attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs with respect to risk, safety, and environmental protection shared throughout the organization by leaders and employees of all levels. Operators can continuously strengthen their safety culture by establishing safety as a core value and, more importantly, through their everyday actions. Maintaining a strong safety culture requires operators to address safety issues proactively, and to understand and to address threats against the operator's safety culture, such as complacency, fear of reprisal, overconfidence, and normalization of deviance. Implementing a well-designed PSMS strengthens an operator's safety culture. Each element of PSMS supports safety culture and the culture feeds back into PSMS in a continuous process. This results in a strong and positive safety culture, an increasingly mature PSMS, and enhanced pipeline safety. Building and nurturing a strong safety culture helps achieve the best safety outcomes. API RP 1173 provides several examples of a positive safety culture that should be considered by all operators. 16

PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to help promote the benefits of PSMS more broadly, and to encourage regulated pipeline owners and operators to implement PSMS based on API RP 1173 voluntarily as part of their efforts to build and to maintain a strong safety culture that improves the safety performance of their systems. 17 Guidance and advisory bulletins are not rules; are not meant to bind the public in any way; and do not assign duties, create legally enforceable rights, or impose new obligations that are not otherwise contained in regulations.

To: Owners and Operators of Regulated Pipelines.

Subject: Pipeline Safety Management System.

Advisory: PHMSA is issuing this advisory bulletin to promote and to encourage regulated pipeline owners and operators in developing and implementing a pipeline safety management system (PSMS) based on a framework such as the one detailed in the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1173: Pipeline Safety Management Systems (API RP 1173). This is consistent with section 205 of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-260), 18 which directed the Secretary of Transportation to “promote” the implementation of pipeline safety management systems by pipeline operators, and the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Safety Recommendation P-24-002. This advisory bulletin promotes the implementation of PSMSs to improve the safety performance of the Nation's pipeline system continually to protect the public from the risks associated with pipelines.

The contents of this advisory bulletin do not have the force and effect of law. They are not meant to bind operators nor the public in any way.

API RP 1173 provides a PSMS framework that builds upon an operator's existing practices with particular emphasis on proactively looking for safety gaps, encouraging the non-punitive reporting of safety issues, and promptly responding to those issues. API RP 1173 emphasizes clarifying the safety roles and responsibilities of leadership, top management, and employees at all levels throughout the operator's organization, including contractor support. PSMS, underpinned by a strong safety culture, makes safety programs and processes more effective to help prevent pipeline accidents.

The 10 essential elements of PSMSs outlined in API RP 1173, and the principles underlying them, apply to operators of any size and complexity. The complexity of a pipeline operator's PSMS program should be appropriate for the size of their operations and the risks their systems pose to the public and environment.

PHMSA encourages the voluntary adoption of PSMS based on a framework such as the one detailed in API RP 1173, as PHMSA believes developing and implementing PSMS would be an effective way to enhance pipeline safety systematically. PHMSA shares NTSB's view that a voluntarily adopted PSMS program can ensure pipelines are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a way that complies with more than just the minimum safety standards found in regulations.

For the reasons noted herein, PHMSA strongly encourages regulated pipeline owners and operators to take the following actions to strengthen their pipeline safety programs:

• Implement a PSMS program and ensure that the program covers all essential elements of an effective PSMS, such as those in API RP 1173.

• Ensure the PSMS program continuously evolves and improves.

• Maintain a positive safety culture that continually promotes diligence throughout the operator's organization and addresses issues that can erode the safety culture.

Electronic Availability

The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

On March 20, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.

Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312 and Public Law (Pub. L.) 95-588 sec. 306, VA is required to increase the benefit rates and income limitations in the Pension and Parents' DIC programs by the same percentage, and effective the same date, as increases in the benefit amounts payable under Title II of the Social Security Act. VA is required to publish the increased rates and income limitations in the Federal Register .

The Social Security Administration announced a 2.5% COLA increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2024. Therefore, applying the same percentage and rounding in accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the following increased rates and income limitations for the VA Pension and Parents' DIC programs became effective December 1, 2024:

(1) Veterans permanently and totally disabled (38 U.S.C. 1521):

Veteran with no dependents, $16,965.

Veteran with one dependent, $22,216.

For each additional dependent, $2,902.

(2) Veterans in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1521):

Veteran with no dependents, $28,300.

Veteran with one dependent, $33,548.

For each additional dependent, $2,902.

(3) Veterans who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1521):

Veteran with no dependents, $20,732.

Veteran with one dependent, $25,982.

For each additional dependent, $2,902.

(4) Two Veterans married to one another, combined rates (38 U.S.C. 1521):

Neither Veteran in need of aid and attendance or housebound, $22,216.

Either Veteran in need of aid and attendance, $33,548.

Both Veterans in need of aid and attendance, $44,886.

Either Veteran housebound, $25,982.

Both Veterans housebound, $29,747.

One Veteran housebound and one Veteran in need of aid and attendance, $37,305.

For each dependent child, $2,902.

(5) Net worth limit under 38 CFR 3.274(a):

For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2024, is $159,240.

(6) Monthly Penalty Rate under 38 CFR 3.276(e)(1):

The monthly penalty rate is $2,795.

Mexican border period and World War I Veterans: The applicable maximum annual rate payable to a Mexican border period or World War I Veteran under this table shall be the applicable rate under paragraph (1)-(4), increased by $3,857. (38 U.S.C. 1521(g)).

(7) Surviving spouse alone and with a child or children of the deceased Veteran in custody of the surviving spouse (38 U.S.C. 1541):

Surviving spouse alone, $11,380.

Surviving spouse and one child in his or her custody, $14,893.

For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,902.

(8) Surviving spouses in need of aid and attendance (38 U.S.C. 1541, 1536):

Surviving spouse alone, $18,187.

Surviving spouse with one child in custody, $21,696.

Surviving Spouse of Spanish-American War Veteran alone, $18,923.

Surviving Spouse of Spanish-American War Veteran with one child in custody, $22,353.

For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,902.

(9) Surviving spouses who are housebound (38 U.S.C. 1541):

Surviving spouse alone, $13,908.

Surviving spouse and one child in his or her custody, $17,414.

For each additional child in his or her custody, $2,902.

(10) Surviving child alone (38 U.S.C. 1542), $2,902.