Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule reauthorizes the Dairy Forward Pricing Program (DFPP) in accordance with the American Relief Act, 2025 (Relief Act). Establishing new contracts under the DFPP was prohibited between the expiration of the program on September 30, 2024, and publication of this final rule. The Relief Act reauthorizes the DFPP program to allow handlers to enter into new contracts until September 30, 2025. Any forward contract entered prior to the September 30, 2025, deadline is subject to a September 30, 2028, expiration date.
April 24, 2025
Erin Taylor, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, STOP 0231-Room 2530, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-4392; Telephone: (202) 720-7183; Email:
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill)
Following the initial expiration of the DFPP which prevented the establishment of new contracts after September 30, 2012, the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,” (ATRA)
Participation in the DFPP is voluntary for dairy farmers, dairy farmer cooperatives, and handlers. Handlers may not require producer participation in a forward pricing program as a condition for accepting milk. USDA, including Market Administrator personnel, does not determine the terms of forward contracts or enforce negotiated prices. This regulation also does not affect contractual arrangements between a cooperative association and its members.
Under the DFPP, regulated handlers must still account to the FMMO pool for the classified use value of their milk. Regulated handlers claiming exemption from the Federal order minimum pricing provisions must submit to the Market Administrator a copy of each forward contract. The contract must contain a disclosure statement—either as part of the contract itself or as a supplement—to ensure producers understand the nature of the program as well as the basis on which they will be paid for their milk. Contracts that do not contain a disclosure statement are deemed invalid and returned to the handler. Signed contracts must be received by the Market Administrator before the first of a month in order to be effective for the month. For example, contracts must be received by the Market Administrator by December 31, 2024, to be effective for the month of January 2025.
Handlers with forward contracts remain subject to all other milk marketing order provisions. Payments specified under a forward contract must be made on or before the same date as the federal order payments they replace. Required payment dates are specified in 7 CFR 1145.2(e).
This final rule reauthorizes producers and cooperative associations of producers to enter into forward price contracts under the DFPP through September 30, 2025. All terms of the new forward contracts must expire prior to September 30, 2028. All other provisions and requirements of the program as provided for in the final rule
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended by E.O. 12415 of February 18, 2025, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, and E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 12415, and E.O. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 12415, and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This does not have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
To determine which dairy farms are “small businesses,” the $3.75 million per year income limit was used to establish an annual milk marketing threshold of 18.3 million pounds. Although this threshold does not factor in additional monies that may be received by dairy producers, it should be an accurate standard for most “small” dairy farmers. Based on the U.S. 2023 average yield per cow and 2023 NASS average All-Milk price, a dairy farm with approximately 780 cows or fewer would meet the definition of small business. In 2022, the most recent year with statistics available, there were 24,470 dairy farms with milk sales, of which approximately 19,576 had milk regulated on an FMMO for at least one month of the year. Based on the 2022 Census of Agriculture, Milk Cow Herd Size by Inventory and Sales, an estimated 89 percent of operations with milk sales are likely to be small businesses.
To determine a handler's size, if the plant is part of a larger company operating multiple plants that collectively exceed the 750-employee limit for creamery butter manufacturing; the 1,000-employee limit for dry, condensed, and evaporated dairy product manufacturing; the 1,150-employee limit for fluid milk manufacturing; or the 1,250-employee limit for cheese manufacturing; the plant was considered a large business even if the local plant does not exceed the 750, 1,000, 1,150, or 1,250-employee limit, respectively.
In 2022, 322 dairy plants were regulated for at least one month of the year in a FMMO. According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, approximately 86 percent of fluid milk manufacturing plants, approximately 96 percent of cheese plants, approximately 82 percent of dry products plants, and approximately 78 percent of butter plants met the SBA definition of small businesses.
Producers and handlers use the DFPP as a risk management tool. Under the DFPP, producers and handlers can “lock-in” prices, thereby minimizing risks associated with price volatility that are particularly difficult for small businesses to mitigate.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Section 1601(c)(2)(B) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that the administration of the DFPP shall be made without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Section 1701 of the 2018 Farm Bill extended that Congressional direction through September 30, 2023. Congress again extended the direction through September 30, 2024, by the Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024, and that direction is further extended to September 30, 2025, by the current reauthorization of the DFPP through the Relief Act.
In accordance with the Relief Act, this final rule extends the DFPP to all Federal milk marketing orders. New contracts under the program may be entered into until September 30, 2025. Any forward contract entered into up to and until the September 30, 2025, deadline is subject to a September 30, 2028, expiration date.
Section 1601(c)(2)(A) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that the promulgation of the regulations to implement the reauthorization of the DFPP shall be made without regard to the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 1701 of the 2018 Farm Bill extended the Congressional direction, and Section 4101 of the Relief Act extends that direction to the current reauthorization of the DFPP. It is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the final rule. Dairy stakeholders have been unable to enter in contracts since the DFPP expired on September 30, 2024. Producers and handlers have thus been unable to rely on these forward contracts as a risk management tool. Stakeholders have inquired about when the program will be reimplemented and have signaled they intend to
Forward pricing contracts, Milk marketing orders, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 1145 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8772.
(b) No forward price contract may be entered into under the program after September 30, 2025, and no forward contract entered into under the program may extend beyond September 30, 2028.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notification of a request for comments.
Consistent with the January 20, 2025, White House memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, captioned “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” the NCUA Board (Board) is soliciting public comment for a period of 60 days on two of its recently published final rules that have not fully taken effect. Specifically, through publication of this notice, the Board invites comment on its final rule captioned “Simplification of Share Insurance,” published on September 30, 2024, which takes full effect on December 1, 2026; and the final rule captioned “Succession Planning,” published on December 26, 2024, which takes full effect on January 1, 2026. The public comment period will allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the two final rules.
Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
Ariel Pereira, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at (703) 548-2778 or at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
You may submit written comments on the final rules, in accordance with the following instructions. Written comments on the final rule captioned “Simplification of Share Insurance” should be identified by RIN 3133-AF53. Written comments on the final rule captioned “Succession Planning” should be identified by RIN 3133-AF42. You may submit written comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
On January 20, 2025, The White House issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies, captioned “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum was published in the
Consistent with the January 20, 2025, White House memorandum, the Board invites public comment for a period of 60 days on its Simplification of Share Insurance
By the National Credit Union Administration Board, this 17th day of April 2025.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective April 23, 2025. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums,
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 23, 2025.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Romana B. Wolf, Manager, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Office of Safety Standards, Flight Standards Service, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective April 23, 2025. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 23, 2025.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Romana B. Wolf, Manager, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Office of Safety Standards, Flight Standards Service, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26,
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending existing regulations relating to special local regulations and safety zones that occur annually in Captain of the Port Zone Eastern Great Lakes. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters.
This rule is effective May 23, 2025.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about the rule, call or email Lieutenant William Kelley, Waterways Management at Sector Eastern Great Lakes, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-931-4680, email
The Coast Guard lists annual marine events in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For Coast Guard Sector Eastern Great Lakes, special local regulations are listed in 33 CFR 100.901 and safety zones are listed in 33 CFR 165.939. Over the 2023 calendar year, the Coast Guard was notified of multiple marine events that are conducted on an annual basis. The Coast Guard previously established temporary regulations implementing safety zones or special local regulations for each of the respective events. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Eastern Great Lakes determined that potential hazards associated with these events would be a safety concern for anyone within boundaries defined in the proposed special local regulations and safety zones during the period of these respective events. Moreover, the COTP Sector Eastern Great Lakes also sought to rename several of the enumerated events in § 165.939 to accurately reflect the current event names. Additionally, the COTP Sector Eastern Great Lakes also determined that some of the events currently listed in the existing regulations are no longer required.
The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after each respective scheduled event. The Coast Guard published a NPRM titled “Special Local Regulations & Safety Zones; USCG Sector Eastern Great Lakes.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 and 70041. The COTP Sector Eastern Great Lakes has determined that restructure and amendment to the tables in §§ 165.939 and 100.901 are necessary for the expeditious and efficient implementation of annual safety zones and special local regulations for local marine events. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone and special local regulations before, during, and after the scheduled event.
As noted above, we received 1 comment on our NPRM that published on January 21, 2025. The commenter expressed support for the proposed changes. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule derived from comments or responses to the NPRM. There are adjustments to some entries on the tables in the regulatory text, adjusting for a more accurate depiction of each respective event as they are currently conducted.
With this final rule, the Coast Guard is making the following changes from the NPRM.
We split the proposed table 1 to § 100.901 and added table 2 to § 100.901. We made this non-substantive change to separate the areas of responsibility for the Eastern Great Lakes and Northern Great Lakes, thereby, increasing efficiency and ease of reference for the United States Coast Guard and the general public.
We made the following changes to Table 1 to § 165.939:
1. In paragraph (g), event No. (5), the title for the event is changed from proposed, “Mentor Harbor Yacht Club Fireworks” to “Mentor Harbor Yacht Club.” In addition, the size of the existing safety zone has been reduced from 700 feet to 500 feet. After publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard determined that a smaller safety zone was appropriate to provide for public safety and facility commerce and navigation.
2. In paragraph (h), event No. (2) for “D-Day Conneaut,” the size of the existing safety zone has been reduced within its current footprint. After publication of the NPRM, the Coast Guard determined that a smaller safety zone was sufficient to provide for the safety of the event participants and the general public.
3. In paragraphs (i), events No. (1) “Madison Light Up the Park” and No. (3) “Head of the Cuyahoga,” in the dates column, the words, “on or around” have been added to allow for increased flexibility for external factors, such as weather delays and calendar conflicts with other local events.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of each respective event. Each event establishes temporary safety zones or special local regulations lasting a short period of time over a small geographic area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the affected areas may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves two separate table revisions that contain special regulated areas and safety zones lasting various times which prohibit entry within defined areas. All additions, removals, and existing items in the aforementioned tables have been previously categorically excluded. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) and L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
The revision reads as follows::
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Matagorda Ship Channel. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the repair of submerged dredge pipeline in the Matagorda Ship Channel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi, or a designated representative.
For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from April 14, 2025, until April 23, 2025. This rule is effective without actual notice from April 23, 2025, through June 06, 2025. It will be subject to enforcement each day it is in effect, between the hours of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5130, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This rule is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with repair of a pipeline, including the deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diving operations, and various other activities
In addition, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that hazards inherent in underwater pipeline repair activities necessitate provisions to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment while those activities are taking place. The activities giving rise to these hazards include the deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diving operations, and various other activities which create underwater hazards for workers and the public.
This rule establishes a safety zone from April 14, 2025, through June 6, 2025. The rule is subject to enforcement from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. each day it is in effect. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters near pipeline repair operations, inside the area encompassed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at Point 1: 28°34′58.78″ N, 96°33′08.69″ W; thence to Point 2: 28°35′00.96″ N, 96°32′49.79″ W; thence to Point 3: 28°35′08.91″ N, 96°33′04.94″ W; thence to Point 4: 28°35′09.87″ N, 96°32′50.23″ W; thence returning to Point 1. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the period in which the rule is subject to enforcement without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 1-800-874-2143. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Safety Marine Information Broadcasts to inform the public of these restrictions.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone covers less than 1 square mile area of the Matagorda Ship Channel in Texas and will be enforced during overnight hours when there is less traffic. The temporary safety zone will be subject to enforcement for a period of 12 consecutive hours each day of the period, from April 14, 2025, to June 6, 2025. Vessels may be allowed to transit through the zone during the enforcement period with the prior approval of the COTP.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial, direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters in the Matagorda Ship Channel lasting 12 hours per day for 54 days. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by submerged pipeline repair activities that may include deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diver's operations, and various other activities which create underwater hazards while people are working. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a), in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation; correction.
The Coast Guard published a notification of enforcement of regulation in the
This correction is effective April 23, 2025.
For information about this document call or email LCDR Carl E. Hendrickson, Waterways Management Division Chief, U.S. Coast Guard; 571-610-2601, email
The Coast Guard is correcting a notification of enforcement of regulation that published April 1, 2025. The Coast Guard is making this change to ensure interested persons can locate the safety zone within 33 CFR part 165.
In the
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising its purchasing regulations governing contract claims and disputes to modify the required language to be included in contracting officer's final decisions, and to make other clarifying updates.
Effective April 23, 2025.
Robert Dietz at 202-268-6088 or Susan Witt at 202-268-4833.
The Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals has changed the address for their electronic filing website. A change to the requirement for the wording of the contracting officer's final decision for contract claims and disputes in paragraph (g)(7) of § 601.109 (now paragraph (h)(7)) is required to update the new internet address. In addition, the following updates to § 601.109 are also being included:
• In paragraph (a), the reference to use of the Supplier Disagreement Resolution (SDR) official as a mediator for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been delated since, in practice, pre-claim ADR before the SDR official has not been utilized;
• Paragraph (b) was revised to streamline the recitation of the Postal Service's policy regarding resolution of contractual claims, and remove the reference to ADR;
•
• The designation hierarchy of paragraphs (c) through (g) was adjusted to paragraphs (d) through (h);
• Paragraph (c) (now paragraph (d)) was revised to remove references to non-regulatory internal processes for the contract file, and to remove an outdated reference to contracts awarded prior to October 1, 1995;
• Paragraph (d) (now paragraph (e)) was revised to remove an outdated reference to contracts awarded prior to October 1, 1995;
• Paragraph (g)(1) (now paragraph (h)(1)) was revised to confirm that contracting officers must have the requisite authority to resolve claims under the section;
• Non-substantive stylistic edits were made to paragraphs (g)(2), (3), (5), (6), and (8) (now in paragraph (h));
• Paragraph (g)(4) (now paragraph (h)(4)) was revised to clarify that delivery of the contracting officer's final decision can be by any method that provides evidence of receipt, not only Certified Mail
• Paragraph (g)(10) was deleted to remove non-regulatory internal processes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 601 as follows:
39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 410, 411, 2008, 5001-5605.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The procurement of property, including license or leasehold interests in real property, other than fee simple title to real property in being;
(2) The procurement of services;
(3) The procurement of construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real property; or
(4) The disposal of personal property.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i) Claims or disputes for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statutes or regulation that a Federal agency administers; or
(ii) Claims involving fraud.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Direct final rule; withdrawal.
ACF published in the
The direct final rule published at 89 FR 107015 on December 31, 2024 is withdrawn effective April 23, 2025.
Kimberly Curtis, Division of Policy and Training, OCSS, telephone (202) 690-6614. Email inquiries to
On December 31, 2024, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a direct final rule to change the name of the child support program throughout 45 CFR Chapter III, parts 301-310 and make technical updates to 45 CFR part 309. The direct final rule stated that if significant adverse comments were received, ACF would publish a timely withdrawal of the DFR in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) revises its Schedule of Application Fees to adjust for increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Daniel Daly, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-1832,
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 24-137, MD Docket No. 20-270, adopted on December 31, 2024, and released on January 7, 2025. Based on the CPI, there is an increase of 17.41 percent in application fees. The full text of this document is available for public inspection by downloading the text from the Commission's website at
1. No Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, because the amendments adopted herein pertain to agency organization, procedure, and practice, or because there is “good cause” to conclude that notice and comment and delayed effectiveness are unnecessary for non-substantive, editorial revisions.
2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198 see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
3. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission has sent a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
4. By the Order, the Commission adopts rule changes to our Schedule of Application Fees set forth in §§ 1.1102 through 1.1109 of our rules, to adjust our fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(b)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), requires the Commission, in every even-numbered year, to adjust the schedule of fees for processing applications to reflect increases or decreases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), rounded to the nearest $5 increment. In the Order, we make the 2024 CPI adjustment.
5. In December 2020, pursuant to authority established by the RAY BAUM'S Act, the Commission adopted a new application fee schedule that significantly updated the Commission's fiscal year (FY) 2018 fee schedule (last fee schedule before implementation of the RAY BAUM'S Act). Accordingly, in 2022, pursuant to section 8(b) of the Act, the Commission adjusted the fees by applying an inflation factor to the fees adopted in 2020 to reflect a change
6. We recognize that, at the time of the Order, there are open rulemakings that propose new application fees. The Order, however, merely implements the 2024 CPI adjustment and does not address fees proposed in any other proceedings.
7. Procedural Matters. The methodology and timing of adjustments to application fees are prescribed by statute at 47 U.S.C. 158(b). Because our action implementing the statute under section 8(b) leaves us no discretion, prior notice and comment is unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Additionally, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
8. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) and section 9a(b) of the Act. Notification of the fee adjustments made in the Order will also be published in the
9. Electronic Payments. As a reminder, filers are required to submit payments electronically in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Commission's website,
10. Accordingly,
11.
12.
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the document above, the Federal Communications Commission amends part 1 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47 U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
Some of the wireless application fees in this section have a regulatory fee component that must be paid at the time of a new or a renewal of a wireless application. Please refer to the Wireless Filing Guide for payment type codes at
(a) In tables to this section, the amounts appearing in the column labeled “Fee Amount” are for application fees only. Certain services, as indicated in the following table, also have associated regulatory fees that must be paid at the same time the application fee is paid. For more information on the associated regulatory fees, please refer to the most recent Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Fee Filing Guide for the corresponding regulatory fee amount located at
(b) Site-based licensed services are services for which an applicant's initial application for authorization generally provides the exact technical parameters of its planned operations (such as transmitter location, area of operation,
(c) Personal licenses authorize shared use of certain spectrum bands or provide a required permit for operation of certain radio equipment. In either case, personal licenses focus only on eligibility and do not require technical review. Examples of these licenses include, but are not limited to, Amateur Radio Service licenses (used for recreational, noncommercial radio services), Ship licenses (used to operate all manner of ships), Aircraft licenses (used to operate all manner of aircraft), Commercial Radio Operator licenses (permits for ship and aircraft station operators, where required), General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) licenses (used for short-distance, two-way voice communications using hand-held radios, as well as for short data messaging applications), Vanity, and Restricted Operator licenses.
(d) Geographic-based licenses authorize an applicant to construct anywhere within a particular geographic area's boundary (subject to certain technical requirements, including interference protection) and generally do not require applicants to submit additional applications for prior Commission approval of specific transmitter locations. Examples of these licenses include, but are not limited to, the 220-222 MHz Service licenses, Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses, 600 MHz Band Service licenses, and 700 MHz Lower Band Service licenses.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-06-02, which applies to all GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines. AD 2024-06-02 was prompted by a report of a crack on the centrifugal compressor case mount pad weld area caused by a non-conforming weld (lack of welding penetration). AD 2024-06-02 requires a one-time detailed visual inspection (DVI) of the compressor case pad welds for any crack, and replacement of the compressor case if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-06-02, the manufacturer determined that the compliance time for the DVI can be extended, and repetitive inspections of the centrifugal compressor case must be accomplished. This proposed AD would require performing repetitive DVIs of the compressor case pad welds for any crack, replacing the compressor case if necessary, and sending certain inspection results to the manufacturer, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by June 9, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Robert Charbonneau, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7132; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Robert Charbonneau, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2024-06-02, Amendment 39-22707 (89 FR 21196, March 27, 2024) (AD 2024-06-02), for GEAC Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines. AD 2024-06-02 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2024-0040-E, dated February 8, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0040-E), to correct an unsafe condition identified as a crack on the
AD 2024-06-02 requires a one-time detailed visual inspection of the compressor case pad welds for any crack and replacement of the compressor case, if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2024-06-02 to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor case.
Since the FAA issued AD 2024-06-02, EASA superseded EASA AD 2024-0040-E and issued EASA AD 2024-0194, dated October 15, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0194) (also referred to as the MCAI). EASA AD 2024-0194 states since that AD was issued, it has been confirmed that the compliance time for the DVI can be extended, and that repetitive DVIs of the affected part must be accomplished.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2024-0194 specifies procedures for performing repetitive DVIs of the compressor case pad welds for any crack, replacement of the compressor case if necessary, and sending certain inspection results to the manufacturer.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2024-06-02. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
GEAC Model M601D, M601D-1, M601D-2, M601D-11NZ, M601E, M601E-21, M601FS, and M601Z engines do not have an FAA type certificate, therefore this proposed AD does not include those engines in the applicability.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 45 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need this replacement:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 9, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2024-06-02, Amendment 39-22707 (89 FR 21196, March 27, 2024) (AD 2024-06-02).
This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) (type certificate previously held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Codes 7120, Engine Mount Section; 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of a crack on the centrifugal compressor case mount pad weld area caused by a non-conforming weld (lack of welding penetration). The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor case. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in crack propagation, possibly resulting in engine separation and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, perform all required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0194, dated October 15, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0194).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0194 requires compliance from its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0194 specifies to contact the manufacturer for approved instructions if any crack is detected on an affected part, this AD requires replacement of the compressor case.
(3) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD 2024-0194.
The Manager, AIR-730 International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the AIR-730 International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email to:
For more information about this AD, contact Robert Charbonneau, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7132; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0194, dated October 15, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at FAA, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local regulation for certain waters on the York River in Yorktown, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during an annual high-speed boat race. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 8, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LCDR Justin Strassfield, Sector Virginia, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Telephone: (571) 608-2969; or
On February 26, 2025, the Coast Guard received a request, under 33 CFR 100.15, from the County of York, for a Marine Event Permit to host a high-speed boat race to be held on June 1, 2025, from noon until 2 p.m., on the York River in Yorktown, VA. The sponsor plans to host this event annually thereafter, on the first Sunday of June. The high-speed boat race will include approximately 35 participants and 200 spectator craft.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a high-speed boat race will be a safety concern for anyone within the race area of the York River. This rule is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the regulated area of this special local regulation during the event.
The COTP, after approving plans for the holding of a marine event within his or her district or zone, is authorized to promulgate such special local regulations (SLRs) as he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the approved regatta or marine parade. 33 CFR 100.35. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event by promulgating an SLR for the annual event. We are providing a comment period of 15 days on the assumption we will have enough time to receive comments, consider them, make any appropriate changes, and publish a final rule by June 1, 2025, when the event will occur. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under statutory authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
The COTP is proposing to establish an SLR which would be codified within 33 CFR 100.501 (Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard District). The SLR would be subject to enforcement annually, from noon to 2:00 p.m. on the first Sunday of June. There is no alternate day planned for this event. Section 100.501 provides, however, that, in the case of inclement weather or other just cause found by the respective COTP, an event may be conducted within 30 days before or after the date(s) identified in the SLR. See 33 CFR 100.501(g).
The proposed regulated area would be located on the York River, in Yorktown, VA., on a designated, marked course. The coordinates of the regulated area are provided in the language of the draft rule, provided below. The proposed enforcement period for the rule and the size of the regulated area have been chosen to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed boat race scheduled from noon to 2:00 p.m. on the first Sunday of June annually. As provided in 33 CFR 100.501(d)(1), the COTP and Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this special local regulation which would impact a small, designated area of the York River for no more than 2 hours a year, during a time when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation lasting 2 hours that would prohibit entry within a race area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Memorandum for the Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(i) * * *
(3) * * *
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice.
We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh rhizomes of wasabi,
Imports may be authorized beginning April 23, 2025.
Mr. Hesham Abuelnaga, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 69 Thomas Johnson Dr., Frederick, MD 21702; (301) 820-8791;
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under this process, APHIS proposes to authorize the importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the
In accordance with that process, we published a notice
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending March 17, 2025. We received two comments by that date, one from a wasabi grower in Indonesia and the other from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Indonesia.
The comment from the Indonesian wasabi grower expressed unqualified support for the notice.
The commenter representing the NPPO asked that we remove the requirement for the phytosanitary certificate (PC) to state that the consignment is free of pests, pointing out that our pest risk assessment (PRA) did not identify any quarantine pests that could follow the pathway of the importation of wasabi from Indonesia. As specified in the RMD that accompanied the initial notice, the Indonesian NPPO must inspect each consignment of commercially produced wasabi to be imported into the United States and issue a PC for each consignment stating that the consignment is free of pests.
We are making no changes in response to the request to amend the PC requirements. The requirements for the PC are modeled after the International Plant Protection Convention in its International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 12, “Guidelines for Phytosanitary Certificates,” which includes a certification that the consignment has been inspected and/or tested according to appropriate official procedures and is considered to be free from the quarantine pests specified by the importing contracting party and to conform with the current phytosanitary requirements of the importing contracting party, including those for regulated non-quarantine pests.
The commenter also asked that the name of the NPPO be updated in the Economic Effects Assessment (EEA) from “Ministry of Agriculture, Agency
We are making no changes to the EEA based on the name change of the NPPO. We acknowledge and agree that the name has been updated but as this name change does not impact the conclusions of the EEA, we are not revising it at this time. We will, however, incorporate this name change in any future documents.
Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation into the United States of fresh rhizomes of wasabi,
These conditions will be listed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, APHIS Agricultural Commodity Import Requirements (ACIR) database (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this notice, please contact
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Northeast Oregon Forests Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests within Baker, Grant, Harney, Morrow, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler Counties, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
An in-person and virtual meeting will be held on May 8, 2025, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person at the La Grande Ranger District Office (Mt. Fanny Conference Room), located 3502 US-30, La Grande, Oregon 97850. The public may also join the meeting virtually via Microsoft Teams/Meeting ID: 246 104 370 412/Passcode: C6T5gx2v, or Dial in by phone + +1 202-650-0123, 721084375# United States, Washington Phone conference ID: 721 084 375#. Committee information and meeting details can be found on the Northeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee's website at
Chase Bloom, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 541-820-3801 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Review criteria for Title II funding and recommendations;
2. Annual review of Ethics Training for committee members;
3. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals;
4. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects;
5. Schedule the next meeting; and
6. Other.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 10 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
On December 26, 2024, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation, grantee of FTZ 55, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 55, on behalf of Century Arms, Inc. in Georgia, Vermont.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
On December 18, 2024, Sanofi US Services Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 49Z in Ridgefield, New Jersey.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that ceramic tile from India is not being, or is not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
Applicable April 23, 2025.
Theodora Mattei, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4834.
On December 2, 2024, Commerce published the
The product covered by this investigation is ceramic tile from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in October 2024, we verified the sales and cost information submitted by Antiqa Minerals (Antiqa) and Win-Tel Ceramics Private Limited (Win-Tel) for use in our final determination.
Based on our verification findings, a review of the record, and the comments received from interested parties regarding the
For this final determination, we find that Antiqa and Win-Tel have not made sales of subject merchandise at LTFV. Consequently, Commerce has not conducted a critical circumstances analysis for this final determination, pursuant to sections 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206. For further information on Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
Commerce determines that the following estimated dumping rates exist:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
In the
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final negative determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is negative, this proceeding is terminated in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ceramic flooring tile, wall tile, paving tile, hearth tile, porcelain tile, mosaic tile, flags, decorative tile, finishing tile, and the like (hereinafter ceramic tile). Ceramic tiles are articles containing a mixture of minerals including clay (generally hydrous silicates of alumina or magnesium) that are fired so the raw materials are fused to produce a tile that is less than 3.2 cm in thickness, exclusive of decorative features. All ceramic tile is subject to the scope regardless of end use, surface area, and weight, regardless of whether the tile is glazed or unglazed, regardless of the water absorption coefficient by weight, regardless of the extent of vitrification, and regardless of whether or not the tile is on a backing. Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile “slabs” or “panels” (tiles that are larger than 1 meter
Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile that undergoes minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, subject merchandise includes ceramic tile produced that undergoes minor processing after importation into the United States. Such minor processing includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: beveling, cutting, trimming, staining, painting, polishing, finishing, additional firing, affixing a decorative surface to the tile, or any other processing that would otherwise not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product.
Subject merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings of heading 6907: 6907.21.1005, 6907.21.1011, 6907.21.1051, 6907.21.2000, 6907.21.3000, 6907.21.4000, 6907.21.9011, 6907.21.9051, 6907.22.1005, 6907.22.1011, 6907.22.1051, 6907.22.2000, 6907.22.3000, 6907.22.4000, 6907.22.9011, 6907.22.9051, 6907.23.1005, 6907.23.1011, 6907.23.1051, 6907.23.2000, 6907.23.3000, 6907.23.4000, 6907.23.9011, 6907.23.9051, 6907.30.1005, 6907.30.1011, 6907.30.1051, 6907.30.2000, 6907.30.3000, 6907.30.4000, 6907.30.9011, 6907.30.9051, 6907.40.1005, 6907.40.1011, 6907.40.1051, 6907.40.2000, 6907.40.3000, 6907.40.4000, 6907.40.9011, and 6907.40.9051. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings of headings 6913,
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 16, 2025.
Suresh Maniam, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1603.
On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain monomers and oligomers (monomers and oligomers) from Taiwan, filed in proper form on behalf of Arkema, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of monomers and oligomers.
Between March 31 and April 8, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Taiwan Authorities (TA) are providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of monomers and oligomers in Taiwan, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing monomers and oligomers in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on March 27, 2025, the POI is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The product covered by this investigation is monomers and oligomers from Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On March 31 and April 8, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the TA of the receipt of the Petition and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Additionally, given the nature of certain subsidy programs alleged in the Petition, on March 28, 2025, Commerce issued a letter to the Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC), providing the GOC with the opportunity to meet with Commerce officials.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2024 production of the domestic like product and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product in 2024 by the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
Because Taiwan is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Taiwan materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports from Taiwan exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; declines in production, capacity, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; declines in profitability, operating income, net income, cash flow, return on assets, capital expenditures, and research and development expenditures; and lost sales and revenues.
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of monomers and oligomers from Taiwan benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the TA. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 38 of the 43 programs alleged by the petitioner. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petition, the petitioner identified seven Companies in Taiwan as producers/exporters of monomers and oligomers.
On April 15, 2025, Commerce released CBP data on imports of monomers and oligomers from Taiwan under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this investigation.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the TA via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of monomers and oligomers from Taiwan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v)
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The products subject to this investigation are certain multifunctional acrylate and methacrylate monomers, and acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomers (collectively, certain monomers and oligomers or CMOs) that are derived from chemical reactions involving the use of acrylic or methacrylic acid. Products within the scope are listed below and have the following Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers:
The monomers are generally known as multifunctional acrylates (MFAs) or multifunctional methacrylates (MFMAs) depending on whether the functional groups are acrylate or methacrylate. The monomers generally contain stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene. The monomers are either difunctional or trifunctional (having 2 or 3 functional groups/molecule), have viscosities of 9 to 15 centipoise (cPs) at 25 degrees Celsius (if difunctional) or 44 to 110 cPs at 25 degrees Celsius (if trifunctional), have (meth) acrylate equivalent weights (molecular weight per number of functional groups) between 99 and 158 and molecular weights between 226 and 472 grams per mol.
The acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomer is commonly referred to as epoxy acrylate or acrylated epoxy. In contrast to epoxy resin, the main characteristic of the epoxy acrylate oligomer is that it contains acrylate functional groups which make them curable by free-radical polymerization. The epoxy acrylate has a molecular weight between 508 to 536 grams per mol and a viscosity of 2400 to 3600 cPs at 65 degrees Celsius. The epoxy acrylate generally contains stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene.
Certain monomers and oligomers are subject to the scope even if an in-scope monomer or oligomer is blended or mixed with one or more other in-scope monomers or oligomers.
Certain monomers and oligomers in any blend or mixture are also subject to the scope, so long as the blend or mixture
The scope includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, introducing, or removing ingredients, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the subject country.
The scope also includes CMOs that are commingled, mixed or blended with in-scope product from sources not subject to this investigation.
Only the subject component(s) of such blends, mixtures or commingled products described above is covered by the scope of this investigation. Subject merchandise contained in a blended, mixed or commingled product described above will not have undergone a chemical reaction as a result of being blended, mixed or commingled.
Notwithstanding the above, specifically excluded from the scope are downstream products, including but not limited to, inks, coatings and overprint varnishes. For purposes of this exclusion, the downstream product requires only the application of energy to be cured,
This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2916.12.5050, 2916.14.2050, 3824.99.2900, 3907.29.0000 and 3907.30.0000. Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 2916.12.1000 and 3824.99.9397. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ceramic tile from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.
Applicable April 23, 2025.
Jinny Ahn or Natasia Harrison, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0339 or (202) 482-1240, respectively.
On September 27, 2024, Commerce published its
The product covered by this investigation is ceramic tile from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
On November 22, 2025, we issued the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by interested parties in this investigation, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in December 2024, Commerce conducted verification of the information reported by Antiqa Minerals (Antiqa), and Win-Tel Ceramics Private Limited (Win-Tel), and the Government of India (GOI) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant account records and original source documents provided by Antiqa, Win-Tel, and the GOI.
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 705(a)(2) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Antiqa and Win-Tel. However, Commerce continues to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise for all other exporters and/or producers not individually examined. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's analysis,
Based on our review and analysis of the information reviewed during verification and analysis of comments received from interested parties, for this final determination, we made certain changes to the countervailable subsidy rate calculations for Antiqa and Win-Tel, and for all other producers/exporters. For a discussion of these changes,
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for the two mandatory respondents, Antiqa and Win-Tel. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, we continue to calculate individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates for Antiqa and Win-Tel that are not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of ceramic tile in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of ceramic tile from India. As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days after this final determination, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of import of ceramic tile from India. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ceramic flooring tile, wall tile, paving tile, hearth tile, porcelain tile, mosaic tile, flags, decorative tile, finishing tile, and the like (hereinafter ceramic tile). Ceramic tiles are articles containing a mixture of minerals including clay (generally hydrous silicates of alumina or magnesium) that are fired so the raw materials are fused to produce a tile that is less than 3.2 cm in thickness, exclusive of decorative features. All ceramic tile is subject to the scope regardless of end use, surface area, and weight, regardless of whether the tile is glazed or unglazed, regardless of the water absorption coefficient by weight, regardless of the extent of vitrification, and regardless of whether or not the tile is on a backing. Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile “slabs” or “panels” (tiles that are larger than 1 meter
Subject merchandise includes ceramic tile that undergoes minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, subject merchandise includes ceramic tile produced that undergoes minor processing after importation into the United States. Such minor processing includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: beveling, cutting, trimming, staining, painting, polishing, finishing, additional firing, affixing a decorative surface to the tile, or any other processing that would otherwise not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product.
Subject merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings of heading 6907: 6907.21.1005, 6907.21.1011, 6907.21.1051, 6907.21.2000, 6907.21.3000, 6907.21.4000, 6907.21.9011, 6907.21.9051, 6907.22.1005, 6907.22.1011, 6907.22.1051, 6907.22.2000, 6907.22.3000, 6907.22.4000, 6907.22.9011, 6907.22.9051, 6907.23.1005, 6907.23.1011, 6907.23.1051, 6907.23.2000, 6907.23.3000, 6907.23.4000, 6907.23.9011, 6907.23.9051, 6907.30.1005, 6907.30.1011, 6907.30.1051, 6907.30.2000, 6907.30.3000, 6907.30.4000, 6907.30.9011, 6907.30.9051, 6907.40.1005, 6907.40.1011, 6907.40.1051, 6907.40.2000, 6907.40.3000, 6907.40.4000, 6907.40.9011, and 6907.40.9051. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings of headings 6913, 6914, and 6905: 6913.90.2000, 6914.10.8000, 6914.90.8000, 6905.10.0000, and 6905.90.0050. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain producers/exporters subject to this administrative review did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable April 23, 2025.
Grant Fuller, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6228.
On February 8, 2024, based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
Where the dumping margin for individually examined respondents are all zero,
In this review, we preliminarily calculated weighted-average dumping margins of zero percent for the mandatory respondents Hyundai Pipe and SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH). Consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the period December 1, 2022, through November 30, 2023:
We intend
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the requesting party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of individuals from the requesting party that will attend the hearing and whether any of those individuals is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues the party intends to discuss at the hearing. Issues raised in the hearing by a party will be limited to those raised in the party's case and rebuttal briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Upon issuing the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If either Hyundai Pipe's or SeAH's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Hyundai Pipe or SeAH for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for Hyundai Pipe and SeAH in the final results of this review, unless that rate is zero or
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily intends to revoke, in part, of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China) with respect to certain small, low-wattage, off-grid (CSPV) cells as described below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 23, 2025.
Samantha Biondo, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6358.
On December 7, 2012, Commerce published the AD and CVD orders on solar cells from China.
On October 21, 2024, we published the notice of initiation of the requested CCRs.
The merchandise covered by these
These
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the
Excluded from the scope of the
Also excluded from the scope of the
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the
Also excluded from the scope of the
1. Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics:
(A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel;
(B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm2 per panel;
(C) do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in either an 8 mm male barrel connector, or a two-port rectangular connector with two pins in square housings of different colors;
(E) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and
(F) must be in individual retail packaging (for purposes of this
2. Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics:
(A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel;
(B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm2 per panel;
(C) do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) must include visible parallel grid collector metallic wire lines every 1-4 millimeters across each solar cell; and
(E) each panel is
1. permanently integrated into a consumer good;
2. encased in a laminated material without stitching, or
3. has all of the following characteristics: (i) the panel is encased in sewn fabric with visible stitching, (ii) includes a mesh zippered storage pocket, and (iii) includes a permanently attached wire that terminates in a female USB-A connector.
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the
1. Off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water:
(A) A total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel;
(B) A surface area of less than 5,000 cm2 per panel;
(C) Do not include a built-in inverter;
(D) Do not have a frame around the edges of the panel;
(E) Include a clear glass back panel; and
(F) Must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rectangular connector.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third country from cells produced in China are covered by the
Additionally excluded from the scope of these
Also excluded from the scope of the
(A) A total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius;
(B) A surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm2) per panel;
(C) Include a keep-out area of approximately 1,200 cm2 around the edges of the panel that does not contain solar cells;
(D) Do not include a built-in inverter;
(E) Do not have a frame around the edges of the panel;
(F) Include a clear glass back panel;
(G) Must include a permanently connected wire that terminates in a two-port rounded rectangular, sealed connector;
(H) Include a thermistor installed into the permanently connected wire before the two-port connector; and
(I) Include exposed positive and negative terminals at opposite ends of the panel, not enclosed in a junction box.
Merchandise covered by these
The products subject to the proposed revocation are certain small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV cells that are permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
1. A total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
2. A maximum surface area of 1,000 cm2 per panel;
3. Does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce may revoke an AD or CVD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
Lutron submitted a letter from the Alliance, a coalition of U.S. producers of the domestic like product, which stated that the Alliance did not oppose the changed circumstances reviews or the specific exclusion language proposed by Lutron.
In light of the Alliance's statement of lack of interest in maintaining the
If we make a final determination to revoke the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue discussed in the brief; and (2) a table of authorities.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the date and time for the hearing.
All submissions are to be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it is due. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Commerce will issue the final results of these CCRs, which will include its analysis of any written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated.
These preliminary results of these reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 16, 2025.
Peter Shaw (the Republic of Korea (Korea)) and Jaron Moore (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0697 and (202) 482-3640, respectively.
On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain monomers and oligomers (monomers and oligomers) from Korea and Taiwan filed in proper form on behalf of Arkema, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of monomers and oligomers.
Between March 31 and April 8, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the monomers and oligomers industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on March 27, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Korea and Taiwan LTFV investigations is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The products covered by these investigations are monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On March 31 and April 8, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of monomers and oligomers to be reported in response to Commerce's AD
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe monomers and oligomers, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5 p.m. ET on May 6, 2025, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5 p.m. ET on May 16, 2025, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the each of the LTFV investigations.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2024 production and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.
The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; declines in production, capacity, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments; declines in profitability, operating income, net income, cash flow, return on assets, capital expenditures, and research and development expenditures; and lost sales and revenues.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner based export price (EP) on transaction-specific average unit values (AUVs) (
For Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner stated that it was unable to obtain home market or third-country pricing information for monomers and oligomers in Korea or Taiwan to use as a basis for NV.
As noted above for Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner stated that it was unable to obtain home market or third-country prices for monomers and oligomers to use as a basis for NV. Therefore, for Korea and Taiwan, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, SG&A expenses, financial expenses, and profit.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for monomers and oligomers from each of the countries covered by this initiation are as follows: (1) Korea—137.84 to 188.01 percent; (2) and Taiwan—112.81 to 286.12 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations.
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified eight companies in Korea and seven companies in Taiwan as producers and/or exporters of monomers and oligomers.
Following standard practice in LTFV investigations involving market economy countries, in the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large, and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading(s) listed in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix.
On April 15, 2025, Commerce released CBP data on imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and Taiwan under administrative protective order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment on CBP data and/or respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of these investigations.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the governments of Korea and Taiwan via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of monomers and oligomers from Korea and/or Taiwan are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV, stating that “if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.” When an interested party submits a PMS allegation pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act (
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The products subject to these investigations are certain multifunctional acrylate and methacrylate monomers, and acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomers (collectively, certain monomers and oligomers or CMOs) that are derived from chemical reactions involving the use of acrylic or methacrylic acid. Products within the scope are listed below and have the following Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers:
The monomers are generally known as multifunctional acrylates (MFAs) or multifunctional methacrylates (MFMAs) depending on whether the functional groups are acrylate or methacrylate. The monomers generally contain stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene. The monomers are either difunctional or trifunctional (having 2 or 3 functional groups/molecule), have viscosities of 9 to 15 centipoise (cPs) at 25 degrees Celsius (if difunctional) or 44 to 110 cPs at 25 degrees Celsius (if trifunctional), have (meth) acrylate equivalent weights (molecular weight per number of functional groups) between 99 and 158 and molecular weights between 226 and 472 grams per mol.
The acrylated bisphenol-A epoxy based oligomer is commonly referred to as epoxy acrylate or acrylated epoxy. In contrast to epoxy resin, the main characteristic of the epoxy acrylate oligomer is that it contains acrylate functional groups which make them curable by free-radical polymerization. The epoxy acrylate has a molecular weight between 508 to 536 grams per mol and a viscosity of 2400 to 3600 cPs at 65 degrees Celsius. The epoxy acrylate generally contains stabilizers/inhibitors, which include but are not limited to Hydroquinone, Methyl Hydroquinone, and Butylated Hydroxy Toluene.
Certain monomers and oligomers are subject to the scope even if an in-scope monomer or oligomer is blended or mixed with one or more other in-scope monomers or oligomers.
Certain monomers and oligomers in any blend or mixture are also subject to the scope, so long as the blend or mixture contains no less than 20 percent by weight of in-scope CMOs.
The scope includes merchandise matching the above description that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, introducing, or removing ingredients, or performing any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the subject country.
The scope also includes CMOs that are commingled, mixed or blended with in-scope product from sources not subject to these investigations.
Only the subject component(s) of such blends, mixtures or commingled products described above is covered by the scope of these investigations. Subject merchandise contained in a blended, mixed or commingled product described above will not have undergone a chemical reaction as a result of being blended, mixed or commingled.
Notwithstanding the above, specifically excluded from the scope are downstream products, including but not limited to, inks, coatings and overprint varnishes. For purposes of this exclusion, the downstream product requires only the application of energy to be cured,
This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 2916.12.5050, 2916.14.2050, 3824.99.2900, 3907.29.0000 and 3907.30.0000. Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 2916.12.1000 and 3824.99.9397. The HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily intends to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (AD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products, whether or not assembled into modules (solar products), from Taiwan with respect to certain small, low-wattage, off-grid certain small, low-wattage, off-grid (CSPV) cells as described below. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 23, 2025.
Samantha Biondo, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
On February 18, 2015, Commerce published the AD order on solar products from Taiwan.
On October 21, 2024, we published the notice of initiation of the requested CCR.
The merchandise covered by the
Subject merchandise includes crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in Taiwan are covered by the
Excluded from the scope of the
Further, also excluded from the scope of the
Also excluded from the scope of the
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the
Merchandise covered by the
The products subject to the proposed revocation are certain small, low-wattage, off-grid CSPV cells that are permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light.
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
1. A total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
2. A maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
3. Does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce may revoke an AD or CVD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (
Lutron submitted a letter from the Alliance, a coalition of U.S. producers of the domestic like product, which stated that the Alliance did not oppose the partial revocation of the
In light of the Alliance's statement of lack of interest in maintaining the
If we make a final determination to revoke the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue discussed in the brief; and (2) a table of authorities.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the date and time for the hearing.
All submissions are to be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it is due.
Commerce will issue the final results of the CCR, which will include its analysis of any written comments, no later than 270 days after the date on which these reviews were initiated.
These preliminary results of these reviews and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) collaborated with NOAA NMFS to initiate a marine spatial planning study to identify draft Aquaculture Opportunity Area (AOA) Options within State waters of southeast, southcentral, and southwest Alaska as part of the AOA identification process. An AOA is a defined geographic area that has been evaluated to determine its potential suitability for commercial aquaculture. NOAA is identifying AOAs as directed by Executive Order, “Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth” (May 7, 2020). This notice invites public comment on the preliminary results of the marine spatial planning study including the identification of draft AOA Options in Alaska State waters. NMFS will consider information received in response to this notice when finalizing the results of the marine spatial planning study, and may or may not identify AOAs after further public participation and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Submit your comments on the marine spatial planning study and draft AOA Options by May 23, 2025. Late submissions may not be considered. NMFS and NCCOS will hold two virtual listening sessions for the collection of oral comments at the following dates and times (see
1. Thursday, May 8, 2025, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Alaska Time).
2. Friday, May 16, 2025, 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. (Alaska Time).
This document is available on the NMFS Alaska Region website at:
You may submit written comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0113, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Registration for the virtual listening sessions may be completed here:
Alicia Bishop, 323-366-5659,
NOAA is identifying AOAs as directed by Executive Order 13921 (E.O. 13921), “Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth” (May 7, 2020). Identifying AOAs under E.O. 13921 is also consistent with directives in the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2801
An AOA is a defined geographic area that NOAA has evaluated through both spatial analysis and the programmatic NEPA process and may be environmentally, socially, and economically appropriate to support multiple commercial aquaculture operations. This notice presents the preliminary results of a marine spatial planning study developed by NCCOS and informed by NMFS and the State of Alaska, collectively referred to as the Gulf of Alaska AOA Siting Team, and invites public comment on the draft AOA Options within the southeast, southcentral, and southwest study areas in Alaska State waters as described in the study. The preliminary results of the marine spatial planning study used a scoring and ranking process to narrow the results to 97 draft AOA Options that have high relative suitability scores. In Alaska, the draft AOA Options include areas:
• Up to 4,000 acres per study area for subtidal shellfish and seaweed aquaculture; and
• Up to 100 acres per study area for intertidal shellfish aquaculture.
All draft AOA Options occur within Alaska State waters (less than 3 nautical miles from shore) up to 61 meters (200 feet) in depth, and meet aquaculture species environmental tolerances and gear thresholds as detailed in the marine spatial planning study. The draft NMFS/NCCOS marine spatial planning study, An Aquaculture Opportunity Analysis for the Gulf of Alaska (available at
Neither the draft AOA Options, nor the AOAs, if any are identified, are pre-permitted sites. Aquaculture can occur within or outside of these areas and each project will be required to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations regardless of location.
Commenters should be as specific and detailed as possible to help NMFS understand and address comments, including whether your comment pertains to a particular part of the Alaska marine spatial planning study. NMFS recognizes that some information requested below may be considered privileged or confidential, or contain information about historical resources. If you determine that the information you wish to submit may fall under these categories, please do not submit comments via
NMFS requests comments regarding the following conditions, feasibility, and historic or current activities within or around the Alaska Draft AOA Options:
1. Is there any additional information not included in the marine spatial planning study for one or more of the draft AOA Options that could limit their relative economic and technical suitability? For example:
○ Are there additional thresholds that should be applied to finalize Alaska draft AOA Options, such as, but not limited to: a maximum distance from port or shore and/or minimum/maximum water depth?
○ Are the Alaska draft AOA Options in areas where water quality and biotoxin samples can be collected and transported to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Environmental Health Lab in Anchorage within the minimum time frames required?
○ Are there specific environmental conditions or other factors that may limit farm access, the number of practical harvest days, gear deployment, or general viability, etc. that have not been considered?
2. Are there geological, geophysical, biological, or bathymetric conditions associated with any of the Alaska draft AOA Options that are not documented in the marine spatial planning study which may impact a site's viability for aquaculture development? For example, do any of the sites contain seafloor features that would restrict anchoring gear?
3. Is there any additional information not documented in the marine spatial planning study regarding the identification of historic properties, or archaeological and cultural resource sites on the seabed or shoreline overlapping with the Alaska draft AOA Options? This includes potential nearshore and coastal archaeological sites or other historic properties within the areas described in this notice and onshore historic properties, Traditional Cultural Places, or cultural resource sites not documented in the marine spatial planning study that may impact a site's viability for aquaculture development (contact
4. Is there any additional existing spatial information not included in the marine spatial planning study about potentially conflicting uses of one or more of the Alaska draft AOA Options, including navigation (commercial shipping and recreational vessel use), fisheries (commercial, recreational, and subsistence), habitat, protected species, or other potential conflicts (contact
5. Is there other relevant socioeconomic, cultural, biological, and/or environmental spatial data and information not documented in the marine spatial planning study?
Responses to this request are voluntary. Respondents need not reply to all questions.
Electronic copies of the marine spatial planning study
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of certification.
The notice announces publication of the certification from the Secretary of Defense to the President that the provisions of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute can be applied to the subdivisions listed in the
Tim Dill, (703) 697-2121.
I specifically concur with the President's determinations as set forth in Executive Order 14251, Section 1(b). Specifically, I agree that the Department of Defense has as a primary function national security work, and the requirements of Chapter 71 of title 5 cannot be applied to its operations consistent with national security requirements and considerations.
Pursuant to section l-499 of Executive Order 14251,
(a) Letterkenny Munition Center, US Army Aviation and Missile Command, United States Army.
(b) Air Force Test Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Department of Air Force.
(c) Air Force Sustainment Center, Air Force Materiel Command, Department of Air Force.
(d) Fleet Readiness Center Southeast.
This determination and certification shall be transmitted to the President of the United States and published in the
Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, approved this document on April 17, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Defense.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.
Request for comments; extension of comment period.
On February 27, 2025, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (OASA(CW)) published a notice in the
The comment period for the notice published February 27, 2025 at 90 FR 10818 is extended. Submit comments by April 30, 2025.
You may submit written comments, identified by Docket ID No. COE-2024-0004, by any of the following methods:
All requests for further information on the notice may be directed to Ms. Lauren Leuck, OASA(CW), at 703-839-0383 or
This comment period regarding WRDA 2024 (Pub. L. 118-272) is being conducted in accordance with section 1105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-270). A copy of WRDA 2024 can be found at the publicly accessible website:
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors, hereafter “Board,” will take place.
Open to the public, May 05, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Eastern Time Zone (ET). Closed to the public, May 05, 2025, from 11 a.m. to noon (12 p.m.) ET.
This meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. Pending prevailing health directives, the meeting will be handicap accessible. Escort is required.
Lieutenant Commander Ross Hammerer, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, 410-293-1503,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 United States Code (U.S.C.), appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Advisory Committee Management Final Rule (41 CFR part 102-3).
Proposed meeting agenda for May 05, 2025.
Current details on the board of visitors may be found at
The closed meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET on May 05, 2025, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative or minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor or conduct violations within the Brigade, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, a portion of this meeting will be closed to the public, as the discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the closed meeting to the public. The Principal Deputy General Counsel has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the closed meeting from 11 a.m. to noon (12 p.m.) will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c) (5), (6), and (7) of title 5, U.S.C.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its May 5, 2025 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Beth Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 205-5798. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
For FY 2025, the Department will award one grant to an eligible entity to administer the OSP in the form of a cooperative agreement between the Department and the grantee.
The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, provided that up to $1,750,000 of the grant may be used for the combination of administrative expenses, parental assistance, and student academic assistance, notwithstanding the allowances specified in the SOAR Act.
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
b.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600 (Predisclosure of Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information), please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative. An application will not be disqualified if it exceeds the recommended page limit.
6.
The following requirements are from section 3005(b) of the SOAR Act and apply to all applications submitted by eligible entities under this competition.
(1) Each entity's application must include a detailed description of—
(a) How the entity will address the priorities described in section 3006 of the SOAR Act;
(b) How the entity will ensure that if more eligible students seek admission in the program of the entity than the program can accommodate, eligible students are selected for admission through a random selection process which gives weight to the priorities described in section 3006 of the SOAR Act;
(c) How the entity will ensure that if more participating eligible students seek admission to a participating school than the school can accommodate, participating eligible students are selected for admission through a random selection process;
(d) How the entity will notify parents of eligible students of the expanded choice opportunities in order to allow the parents to make informed decisions;
(e) The activities that the entity will carry out to provide parents of eligible students with expanded choice opportunities through the awarding of scholarships under section 3007(a) of the SOAR Act;
(f) How the entity will determine the amount that will be provided to parents under section 3007(a)(2) of the SOAR
(g) How the entity will seek out private elementary schools and secondary schools in the District of Columbia to participate in the program;
(h) How the entity will ensure that each participating school will meet the reporting and other program requirements under the SOAR Act;
(i) How the entity will ensure that participating schools submit to site visits by the entity as determined to be necessary by the entity;
(j) How the entity will ensure that participating schools are financially responsible and will use the funds received under section 3007 of the SOAR Act effectively;
(k) How the entity will ensure the financial viability of participating schools in which 85 percent or more of the total number of students enrolled at the school are participating eligible students that receive and use an opportunity scholarship;
(l) How the entity will address the renewal of scholarships to participating eligible students, including continued eligibility;
(m) How the entity will ensure that a majority of its voting board members or governing organization are residents of the District of Columbia; and
(n) How the eligible entity will ensure that it utilizes internal fiscal and quality controls and complies with applicable financial reporting requirements; and
(2) An assurance that it will comply with all requests regarding any evaluation carried out under section 3009(a) of the SOAR Act.
In addition to the statutory application requirements, we encourage applicants to include a description of (1) how they will provide information to parents regarding which provisions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
1.
(a) Quality of project design (up to 35 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program.
(b) Adequacy of resources (up to 25 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the lead applicant organization (up to 15 points).
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits (up to 10 points).
(c) Quality of the management plan (up to 40 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (up to 8 points).
(2) The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community member and partner input, to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project (up to 8 points).
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 8 points).
(4) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and accessible products and services from the proposed project for the target population (up to 8 points).
(5) The extent to which the project director or principal investigator, when hired, has the qualifications required for the project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project and experience in designing, managing, or implementing similar projects for the target population to be served by the project (up to 8 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, Community Organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Kelso-Beaver Reliability Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) in Cowlitz County, Washington. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on May 19, 2025. Comments may be submitted in written or oral form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written and oral comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on February 27, 2025, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP25-89-000 or CP25-90-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is also on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP25-89-000 or CP25-90-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852; or
(4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of this scoping session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The scoping session is scheduled from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. You may arrive at any time after 4:30 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 6:30 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 6 p.m. Please see appendix 2 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see the last page of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Northwest will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a scoping session.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Northwest proposes to acquire, own, and operate an existing 18-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter pipeline (KB Pipeline) from Portland General Electric Company, KB Pipeline Company, and B-R Pipeline, LLC.
The Project would create 52,400 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of westbound capacity and 131,000 Dth/d of eastbound capacity on Northwest's system. According to Northwest, the Project would provide incremental westbound transportation service from its system into the North Mist Project and new eastbound transportation service from the North Mist Project into Northwest's system.
The project would consist of the following facilities:
• one new KB Compressor Station in Cowlitz County, Washington, consisting of one 5,500 horsepower electric motor driven compressor unit and appurtenances. The site is currently residential in use; and
• modification of the existing KB Meter Station and existing aboveground facilities in Cowlitz County, Washington.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 4.8 acres of land, including about 3.3 acres for the proposed KB Compressor Station, about 0.7 acre for the KB Meter Station, and about 0.8 acre for temporary workspace along the KB Pipeline right-of-way. Northwest would purchase the land on which the proposed compressor station and meter station would be constructed. Following construction, Northwest would maintain about 3.9 acres for permanent operation of the project's aboveground facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a “Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment” will be issued. The EA may be issued for an allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a “Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule” will be issued, which will open up an additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office, and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 3).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on March 31, 2025, Golden Triangle Storage, LLC (GTS), 919 Milam Street, Suite 2425, Houston, Texas 77002, filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its Spindletop Expansion Project (Project) at its existing Central Storage Site in Jefferson County, Texas. The Project consists of: (1) four new salt dome storage caverns and well pads, (2) ten 5,500 horsepower gas-fired reciprocating engine compressor units, and (3) various appurtenances. The Project will add 30.75 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of working gas capacity and 24.2 Bcf of base gas capacity. The aggregate injection and withdrawal capability at the Central Storage Site will increase by 1,000 million cubic feet per day. Additionally, GTS requests reaffirmation of its existing market-based rate authority, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to James F. Bowe, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006, by phone at (202) 626-9601, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
A water quality certificate under section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required for the project from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the Railroad Commission of Texas. When available, GTS should submit to the Commission a copy of the request for certification for the Commission authorization, including the date the request was submitted to the certifying agency, and either (1) a copy of the certifying agency's decision or (2) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before May 1, 2025.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-167-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP25-167-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-167-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP25-167-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: James F. Bowe, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006 or by email (with link to document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed transmission service formula rates.
The Sierra Nevada Region (SN) of the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) proposes new long-term formula rates to become effective October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2030 for Pacific Alternating Current Intertie (PACI) Point-to-Point (PTP) transmission services. SN is proposing a cost-based formula rate for Statutory Service and two new equitable formula rates for sale of surplus capacity for non-Statutory Service. SN also proposes to supersede certain formula rates for short-term sales on the PACI, PACI-T4 and PACI-T5, (approved under Delegation Order No. S3-DEL-WAPA1-2023, Section 1.4.B) with these proposed long-term formula rates.
A consultation and comment period will begin April 23, 2025 and end July 22, 2025. SN will present a detailed explanation of the proposed formula rates and other modifications at a public information forum that will be held on June 18, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. PST to no later than 12:30 p.m. PST. SN will host a public comment forum on June 18, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. PST to no later than 3:30 p.m. PST, or until the last comment is received. The public information forum and the public comment forum will be conducted virtually. Instructions for participating in the forums will be posted on SN's website at least 14 days prior to the public information and comment forums at:
Written comments and requests to be informed of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions concerning the proposed formula rates submitted by WAPA to FERC for approval should be sent to: Michelle Williams, Regional Manager, Sierra Nevada Region, Western Area Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, California 95630, or email:
Autumn Wolfe, Rates Manager, Sierra Nevada Region, Western Area Power Administration, (916) 353-4686 or email:
SN is proposing a cost-based formula rate for Statutory Service and two new equitable formula rates for sale of surplus capacity utilized for non-Statutory Service.
PACI authorizing legislation (16 U.S.C. 837e) provides transmission capacity not required for the transmission of Federal energy shall be at equitable rates determined by the Secretary of Energy.
The proposed cost-based formula rate would provide sufficient revenue to recover annual operation, maintenance, replacement expenses, interest expense, and capital repayment requirements while ensuring repayment of the project within the cost recovery criteria set forth in Department of Energy (DOE) Order RA 6120.2. The proposed equitable formula rates would aid and benefit the Central Valley Project (CVP) by offsetting project power costs. For more information on the proposed rates, please see the customer rate brochure located on SN's website at:
Formula Rate Schedule PACI-C1 is the proposed rate for transmission service to move Federal power on the PACI transmission line for Statutory Service (
SN prepares a detailed cost-of-service study to determine the costs, by project, that support the transfer capability of each transmission system and the cost that supports the generation capability of the CVP system. Generally, the costs allocated through the cost-of-service study for the transmission systems include operation and maintenance, interest, and depreciation expenses. SN's costs for scheduling, system control, and dispatch service associated with PACI transmission service are included and recovered through the transmission systems' revenue requirement. SN proposes to charge a cost-based formula rate.
Formula Rate Schedule for PACI-W1 is the proposed rate for surplus PACI transmission used for non-Statutory Service that is delivered and/or received between Malin to Round Mountain and/or Malin to Cottonwood Substation located within the Balancing Authority of Northern California Balancing Authority Area (BAA). SN proposes to utilize an equitable formula rate based on the SN California-Oregon
Formula Rate Schedule PACI-D1 is the proposed rate for surplus PACI transmission used for non-Statutory Service that is delivered from and/or received at Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Default Load Aggregation Point located within the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) BAA. SN proposes to utilize an equitable formula rate based on SN's cost for wheeling power through the CAISO BAA.
On August 30, 2024, WAPA's Administrator placed into effect on a final basis, rates for short-term sales for PACI transmission service under Rate Schedules PACI-T4 and PACI-T5 to be in effect from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.
DOE procedures for public participation in power and transmission rate adjustments are located at (10 CFR part 903). The proposed action is a major rate adjustment, as defined by 10 CFR 903.2(d). In accordance with 10 CFR 903.15(a) and 10 CFR 903.16(a), SN will hold public information and public comment forums for this rate adjustment. SN will review and consider all timely public comments at the conclusion of the consultation and comment period and adjust the proposal as appropriate. Depending on the comments, WAPA proposes for the rates to be approved on an interim basis.
WAPA is establishing the formula rates for PACI in accordance with section 302 of the DOE Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152).
By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-RATES-2016, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) the authority to develop power and transmission rates to the WAPA Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, or to remand or disapprove such rates, to FERC. By Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2024, effective August 30, 2024, the Secretary of Energy also delegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Under Secretary for Infrastructure. By Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-WAPA1-2023, effective April 10, 2023, the Under Secretary for Infrastructure further redelegated the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to WAPA's Administrator.
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that SN initiates or uses to develop the proposed formula rates are available for inspection and copying at the Sierra Nevada Region, located at 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, California. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on SN's website at:
WAPA is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 4, 2025, by Tracey A. LeBeau, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document, with the original signature and date, is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the approval of a product redeeming a priority review voucher. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the issuance of priority review vouchers as well as the approval of products redeeming a priority review voucher. FDA has determined that the application for EYLEA HD (aflibercept), approved August 18, 2023, meets the criteria for redeeming a priority review voucher.
Andrea Gormley, Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Coordination Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., 2nd Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2210 (this is not a toll free number).
Under section 565A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-4a), FDA will report the issuance of material threat MCM priority review vouchers and the approval of products for which a voucher was redeemed. FDA has determined that the application for EYLEA HD (aflibercept) meets the redemption criteria.
For further information about the material threat MCM Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the establishment of a docket for public comments exploring the Health Level Seven (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for submission of data collected from real-world data (RWD) sources. In alignment with the new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health (ASTP/ONC) policy on health information technology (health IT), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are exploring approaches to optimize the submission of structured and standardized clinical study data collected from RWD sources. FDA is seeking public comment from interested parties on specific questions. Interested parties may include regulated industry, health IT vendors, academic medical centers, and electronic data capture vendors as well as other interested parties.
Either electronic or written comments on the notice must be submitted by June 23, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ethan Chen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7626,
Sponsors are increasing their use of RWD to support claims of safety and effectiveness for FDA-regulated medical products. FDA defines RWD as “data relating to patient health status and/or the delivery of health care routinely collected from a variety of sources. Examples of RWD include data derived from electronic health records, medical claims data, data from product or disease registries, and data gathered from other sources (such as digital health technologies) that can inform on health status” (Ref. 1).
As stated in FDA's guidance for industry entitled “Data Standards for Drug and Biological Product Submissions Containing Real-World Data” (Data Standards Guidance) (Ref. 2), the Agency recognizes challenges involved in standardizing clinical study data collected from RWD sources for inclusion in applicable submissions. The Agency is currently considering how data standards specific to data derived from RWD sources might help accurately and consistently represent data obtained from RWD sources when submitting study data to the Agency.
FDA will also consider the recently adopted HHS Health IT Alignment Policy (Ref. 3), which requests that all HHS operating and staff divisions (including FDA) align on health IT policy that is being developed and implemented by ASTP/ONC. ASTP/ONC defines health IT as “hardware, software, integrated technologies or related licenses, intellectual property, upgrades, or packaged solutions sold as services that are designed for or support the use by health care entities or patients for the electronic creation, maintenance, access, or exchange of health information” (Ref. 3). The policy asks for “greater alignment of health IT-related activities in support of [HHS'] health IT and interoperability goals” (Ref. 3) and, as such, creates an opportunity for FDA to explore such alignment with respect to clinical study data collected from RWD sources.
In 2020, the final rule entitled “21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program” (85 FR 25642; May 1, 2020) was published by ASTP/ONC, establishing the HL7 FHIR standard as a nationwide standard for access, exchange, and use of data for healthcare delivery organizations. The capabilities that the final rule requires from ONC-certified health IT will enable patients, clinicians, researchers, and other appropriate parties to access data from certified electronic health records (EHRs) and other certified health IT in a Representational State Transfer manner, utilizing application programming interface (API) technology. Beginning in 2022, more than 50 data elements in the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) are consistently and routinely available through certified health IT using FHIR (see
ASTP/ONC expanded the number of data elements available through the FHIR standard in the final rule entitled “Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Certification Program Updates, Algorithm Transparency, and Information Sharing” (HTI-1 final rule) published January 9, 2024 (89 FR 1192). The HTI-1 final rule establishes USCDI version 3, a data set of more than 80 data elements, as the new standard set of data classes and constituent data elements for nationwide, interoperable health information exchange. Additionally, ASTP/ONC has also created the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA), which operates in the United States as a nationwide framework for health information sharing.
Although clinical study data submitted to FDA are not explicitly required to be collected or submitted using ONC-certified health IT, given the fact that some RWD sources (such as EHRs) are already adopting FHIR and support the USCDI standardized data elements, FDA will explore the possibility of receiving clinical study data that includes data collected from EHRs using HL7 FHIR (along with other data standards currently used in clinical research). The Agency has actively explored many exchange formats and data standards and terminologies that have gained maturity in the past decade for potential adoption. Current initiatives utilizing HL7 FHIR include:
• Structured Pharmaceutical Quality/Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (PQ/CMC):
• Structured Product Labeling (SPL) on FHIR:
• CBER Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) Innovative Methods (IM) Platform (Ref. 4): A FHIR-based platform (see
• Application of HL7 FHIR to collect data directly from EHRs in a clinical trial:
• Common Data Model Harmonization (Refs. 7, 8): Builds a data infrastructure for conducting patient-centered outcomes research using RWD derived from routine clinical settings. This project aims to establish mappings between various common data models and currently supported data models, including harmonization with HL7 FHIR US Core.
• Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) Integration and Interoperability Initiative:
These activities demonstrate FDA's commitment to information systems modernization as well as openness to using FHIR in general.
More generally, FDA is exploring approaches to modernize submissions of clinical study data collected from RWD sources to the Agency using FHIR, while ensuring alignment with other FDA policy regarding RWD and the work of ASTP/ONC. Given the ubiquity of FHIR-based data elements generated, exchanged, and used in healthcare organizations, and considering the overlap between healthcare data and the information required for clinical research from RWD sources, FDA seeks input from interested parties regarding the range of challenges to be addressed when considering the use of FHIR for submission of clinical study data collected from RWD sources. Additionally, the Agency is seeking feedback on possible approaches and challenges to structuring and standardizing study data submissions with RWD sources using FHIR while aligning with the data interoperability and exchange standards adopted by HHS through ASTP/ONC. Please use the questions in section II to frame your comments. Also, please specify which types of RWD source(s) are pertinent to your comment (for example, EHRs, insurance claims), if applicable.
FDA is requesting public comment on the questions below. Given the context of the currently supported data standards and models, technical guides, terminologies, and exchange formats used for clinical and nonclinical study data submission to FDA, those used for RWD sources such as EHRs, and the need to align with ASTP/ONC health IT development as described above:
1. What challenges do you see for the pharmaceutical industry regarding the
2. What opportunities and/or challenges do you see for the pharmaceutical industry on reaching a future state of clinical study data submissions collected from RWD sources using HL7 FHIR (
3. What are your suggestions on how, from a data standards perspective, FDA might reach a future state of clinical study data submissions collected from RWD sources that aligns with ASTP/ONC health IT goals for HL7 FHIR-based exchange?
4. Does USCDI version 3 provide enough information for collecting RWD for research purposes? Is there information that USCDI version 3 does not sufficiently address?
5. Under TEFCA, a variety of “Exchange Purposes” are authorized. If “Research” was added as an “Exchange Purpose,” what role could TEFCA play with using RWD for clinical research? How could TEFCA support more efficient collection and exchange of RWD for clinical research purposes? What challenges might exist with this approach?
The following references are on display at the Dockets Management Staff (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for a limited number of drug manufacturing establishments to participate in the second year of the voluntary Quality Management Maturity Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program involving the use of a refined prototype assessment protocol to evaluate quality management maturity (QMM). The Center of Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) implemented this voluntary program for manufacturers of CDER-regulated drug products to gain additional experience with, and further refine as necessary, the prototype assessment protocol and process, to help enable consistent and meaningful assessment of participating establishments' quality management practices, and to provide useful feedback to participants. This notice announces CDER's intent to continue the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation
CDER intends to accept requests to participate in the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program through June 9, 2025. See the “Participation” section of this document for instructions on submitting a request to participate and the selection process.
For questions about the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program: Djamila Harouaka, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 4160, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-0224,
QMM refers to the extent to which drug manufacturing establishments implement quality management practices that prioritize patients, drive continual improvement, and enhance supply chain reliability through the strategic integration of business decisions and manufacturing operations with quality practices and technological advancements. CDER is in the process of developing a voluntary program to promote QMM at drug manufacturing establishments, which would encourage drug manufacturers to implement or improve their quality management practices.
Between October 2020 and March 2022, CDER conducted two pilot programs to assess the QMM of drug manufacturing establishments. The first pilot program evaluated the maturity of seven domestic manufacturers of finished dosage forms for the U.S. market.
Using the findings from these two pilot programs, a review of the literature on quality management, evaluations of existing external programs assessing elements of quality culture or pharmaceutical quality, surveys of external stakeholders, and feedback from partner offices and centers within FDA, CDER developed a prototype assessment protocol to evaluate an establishment's QMM.
Maturity (QMM) Program: Practice Areas and Prototype Assessment Protocol Development (see
In 2024, CDER evaluated nine establishments in the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program.
The 2024 QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program provided CDER with experience in the successful application of the prototype assessment tool across a group of volunteer establishments that reasonably reflected the diversity of the industry. The rubric effectively differentiated the maturity of quality management practices across the nine establishments assessed in 2024. Using the feedback received and insights gained from 2024, CDER modified its prototype QMM assessment tool to be clearer and more concise and updated the rubric. We also modified how some of the questions are framed for greater clarity. CDER intends to evaluate these improvements and further refine the prototype protocol as necessary by continuing the voluntary program and offering the opportunity to establishments that wish to volunteer to participate in 2025. This notice announces CDER's intent to continue the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program, outlines the types of establishments CDER is seeking for participation, and describes the process for submitting a request to participate in the program.
CDER will consider the following establishment characteristics when identifying potential participants for this voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program:
• The potential participant is an establishment as defined in 21 CFR 207.1 that registers with FDA under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes drugs, or APIs used in such drugs, subject to approval or licensure under section 505 of the FD&C Act or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, or that are marketed pursuant to section 505G of the FD&C Act without an approved application under section 505 of the FD&C Act (often referred to as over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drug products).
• The establishment has received at least one human drug surveillance inspection.
• The current inspection classification for the establishment at the time of the request to participate is No Action Indicated or Voluntary Action Indicated.
• The establishment manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes at least one CDER-regulated drug (API or finished drug product) that is currently in commercial distribution in the United States.
• The establishment is willing to participate in an onsite or hybrid assessment.
Drug product manufacturers that meet the establishment characteristics described in Section II.A and are interested in participating in the voluntary QMM Prototype Assessment Protocol Evaluation Program should submit a request directly to Conchetta Newton (see
(1) A contact person (name and email).
(2) Manufacturing establishment address.
(3) FDA Establishment Identifier and Data Universal Numbering System Numbers.
(4) A brief description of the business operations (
(5) Confirmation that the establishment features the characteristics discussed in Section II.A of this notice.
To be eligible to participate in this 2025 program, establishments should submit a request to participate within the request acceptance period as discussed in the
CDER intends to select participants that reasonably reflect the diversity of the industry. CDER intends to notify each establishment of a decision on their request to participate within 45 days after the close of the request acceptance period as discussed in the
CDER intends to notify participants of their selection and confirm participation. This notification would include information about a virtual orientation session in which CDER would share additional information with participating establishments including the program timelines, milestones, and expectations. Participating establishments would also receive a pre-assessment questionnaire, which provides specific topic areas that would be addressed during the assessment, help to prepare in advance of the assessment, and help determine which personnel would be most appropriate to provide supporting information. CDER intends to provide each establishment with options for dates to schedule the 5-day assessment.
Teams of three assessors would conduct each assessment. The QMM assessment team would be composed of CDER staff not including personnel from FDA's Office of Inspections and Investigations charged with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with current good manufacturing practice. In advance of the assessment, the establishment would receive an agenda to ensure the appropriate people are present at the requested times. The entire leadership team would not need to be present for the full assessment. If necessary, personnel may participate remotely.
Following completion of the assessment, each participating establishment would receive a report that provides, for each practice area: their score, a narrative, areas of strength, and opportunities for improvement. After reviewing the report, participating establishments would meet with the QMM assessment team to discuss any questions or comments they have regarding the report.
In the post-assessment phase of this program, participating establishments will be encouraged to select at least one opportunity to improve from the QMM report and develop an improvement plan with defined goal(s) based on that opportunity. Approximately 3 months after receipt of the QMM report, participating establishments will share their improvement plan with CDER and meet to discuss their plan and path forward. Approximately 6 months after receipt of the QMM report, CDER will schedule a final meeting with the participating establishment to discuss any progress made toward achieving their improvement goal(s). CDER will also solicit feedback from each participating establishment on the assessment, the report, and any suggestions or input they wish to share. This information will help CDER evaluate use of its QMM assessment tool and process to determine whether it enables a meaningful assessment of the establishment's quality management practices and if the feedback provided to the establishment was useful.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved material threat MCM product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that EBANGA (ansuvimab-zykl) for injection, approved on December 21, 2020, manufactured by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, LP, meets the criteria for a material threat MCM priority review voucher.
Andrea Gormley, Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Coordination Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., 2nd Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2210 (this is not a toll free number).
FDA is announcing the issuance of a material threat MCM priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved material threat MCM product application. Under section 565A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-4a), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved material threat MCM product applications that meet certain criteria upon approval of those applications. FDA has determined EBANGA (ansuvimab-zykl), manufactured by Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, LP, meets the criteria for a material threat MCM priority review voucher. EBANGA was approved on December 21, 2020, for the treatment of infection caused by
For further information about the material threat MCM Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 565A of the FD&C Act, go to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of receipt of domestic interested party petition; solicitation of comments.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has received a petition submitted on behalf of a domestic interested party requesting the reclassification, under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), of certain cane sugar molasses and liquid sugar. CBP currently classifies the subject cane sugar molasses under subheading 1703.10.30, HTSUS, as molasses, and the liquid sugar under subheading 1702.90.40, HTSUS. Petitioner contends that the proper classification for the subject cane sugar molasses and liquid sugar is under subheading 1702.90.10, HTSUS, or subheading 1702.90.20, HTSUS, as “sugar syrups.” This document invites comments regarding the correctness of the current classification.
Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
Please submit comments, identified by docket number, by the following method:
•
Marie Durane, Food, Textiles and Marking Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at (202) 325-0984 or by email at
A petition was filed under section 516 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516), on behalf of the American Sugar Coalition (Petitioner or ASC) and its members. ASC is a national coalition that consists of sugar beet and sugar cane farmers, sugar cane millers, sugar beet processors, and sugar cane refiners, either through their membership in various trade associations, or in their individual capacity. Members of the ASC individually manufacture, produce, or wholesale raw and refined sugar in the United States, and Petitioner represents that they produce over 95 percent of all raw and refined sugar in the United States. ASC meets all the requirements of a domestic interested party set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2) and section 175.3(a) in title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 175.3(a)).
In New York Ruling Letter (NY) N309706 (March 10, 2020), CBP classified the product described as refiner's molasses in subheading 1703.10.3000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA),
Petitioner contends that the refiner's molasses and liquid sugar, which were the subject of the two rulings, and the cane sugar molasses that is currently being imported at the Port of Buffalo are classified in subheading 1702.90.1000, HTSUSA, which provides for “Other sugars, including chemically pure lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose, in solid form; sugar syrups not containing added flavoring or coloring matter; artificial honey, whether or not mixed with natural honey; caramel: Other, including invert sugar and other sugar and sugar syrup blends containing in the dry state 50 percent by weight of fructose: Derived from sugar cane or sugar beets: Containing soluble non-sugar solids (excluding any foreign substances, including but not limited to molasses, that may have been added to or developed in the product) equal to 6 percent or less by weight of the total soluble solids: Described in additional U.S. note 5 to this Chapter and entered pursuant to its provisions,” or in subheading 1702.90.2000, HTSUSA, if not described in additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17, HTSUS, and not entered pursuant to its provisions.
Classification under the HTSUS is determined in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) and, in the absence of special language or context which otherwise requires, by the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (ARIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, GRIs 2 through 6 may be applied in order.
Additional U.S. Note (AUSN) 10 to Chapter 17, HTSUS, provides that “Heading 1703 does not include products derived from sugar cane or sugar beet and containing soluble non-sugar solids (excluding any foreign substance that may have been added or developed in the product) equal to 6 percent or less by weight of the total soluble solids.”
The Explanatory Notes (ENs) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level. While neither legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings.
Molasses of this heading is obtained only as a result of the extraction or refining of sugar. It is most commonly obtained as a normal by-product resulting from the extraction or refining of beet or cane sugar or from the production of fructose from maize (corn). It is a brown or blackish viscous substance containing an appreciable amount of sugar which cannot readily be crystallised. However, it may be powdered.
Beet sugar molasses is not normally eaten as such, but certain refined forms of sugar cane molasses and corn molasses are suitable for human consumption and are sold as treacle or as table syrups. The main uses of molasses are as the raw material from which alcohols and alcoholic beverages are distilled (
Molasses of this heading may be decolourised, coloured or flavoured.
Petitioner contends that the proper classification for the subject cane sugar molasses and liquid sugar is in subheading 1702.90.1000, HTSUSA, which provides for “Other sugars, including chemically pure lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose, in solid form; sugar syrups not containing added flavoring or coloring matter; artificial honey, whether or not mixed with natural honey; caramel: Other, including invert sugar and other sugar and sugar syrup blends containing in the dry state 50 percent by weight of fructose: Derived from sugar cane or sugar beets: Containing soluble non-sugar solids (excluding any foreign substances, including but not limited to molasses, that may have been added to or developed in the product) equal to 6 percent or less by weight of the total soluble solids: Described in additional U.S. note 5 to this Chapter and entered pursuant to its provisions,” or in subheading 1702.90.2000, HTSUSA, if not described in additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17, HTSUS, and not entered pursuant to its provisions, and therefore are appropriately classified as “sugar syrups” under subheading 1702.90.1000, HTSUSA, or subheading 1702.90.2000, HTSUSA, pursuant to GRI 1.
Petitioner argues that the liquid sugar product in NY N324972, the refiner's molasses in NY N309706, and the cane sugar molasses that is currently being imported at the Port of Buffalo are cane sugar run-off syrup and not molasses as described in heading 1703, HTSUS. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the products do not meet the requirements of AUSN 10 to Chapter 17, HTSUS, and the requirements in the ENs to heading 1703, HTSUS. In addition, with respect to NY N324972, Petitioner argues that the ruling lacks details regarding the product's soluble non-sugar solid content, and whether or not any foreign substances were added during the manufacturing process and, as a result, the ruling should be reconsidered.
Based on these factors, Petitioner urges CBP to find that the subject cane sugar molasses and liquid sugar are “sugar syrups.” It is Petitioner's view that the products are cane sugar run-off syrups that do not contain over six percent soluble non-sugar solids, unless a refinery is deliberately adding a foreign substance during the manufacturing process or deliberately causing a foreign substance to be developed in the product by adjusting its refining process to operate in a manner that is not commercially or economically reasonable. Moreover, Petitioner argues that the products do not have the physical and chemical characteristics of molasses. In support of its argument, Petitioner relies on the industry standard production process for molasses, the dictionary definitions of molasses and the ordinary meaning of molasses in the trade, and the legislative history of the tariff provisions covering sugar and molasses.
Subheading 1703.10.3000, HTSUSA, provides for “Molasses resulting from the extraction or refining of sugar: Cane Molasses: Imported for (a) the commercial extraction of sugar or (b) human consumption.” Heading 1703, HTSUS, applies to molasses “resulting from the extraction or refining of sugar.” The ENs to heading 17.03 HTSUS, state, in pertinent part, that, “Molasses of this heading is obtained only as a result of the extraction or refining of sugar. It is most commonly obtained as a normal by-product resulting from the extraction or refining of beet or cane sugar or from the production of fructose from maize (corn).” AUSN 10 to Chapter 17, HTSUS, specifies that the type of molasses covered by heading 1703, HTSUS, includes “products derived from sugar cane or sugar beet and containing soluble nonsugar solids (excluding any foreign substance that may have been added or developed in the product) equal to 6 percent or less by weight of the total soluble solids.” In NY N309706, the subject refiner's molasses is refined from Brazilian raw
Subheading 1702.90.4000, HTSUSA, provides for “Other sugars, including chemically pure lactose, maltose, glucose and fructose, in solid form; sugar syrups not containing added flavoring or coloring matter; artificial honey, whether or not mixed with natural honey; caramel: Other, including invert sugar and other sugar and sugar syrup blends containing in the dry state 50 percent by weight of fructose: Derived from sugar cane or sugar beets: Other: Other.” The ENs to heading 17.02, HTSUS, provide for sugar syrups, and include “juices and sugars” obtained during the extraction of sugars from sugar beet, sugar cane, etc. In NY N324972, the liquid sugar contains 66.7 percent sugar, 33.3 percent water and trace amounts of calcium hydroxide. The liquid sugar is made from raw cane sugar from Brazil that is granulated, diluted with water, heated, filtered, and packed. The liquid sugar in NY N324972 is classified under subheading 1702.90.4000, HTSUSA, pursuant to GRIs 1 and 6, because the product is liquid sugar made from the extraction of sugars in sugar cane.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 175.21, before making a determination on this matter, CBP invites written comments on the petition, from interested parties.
The domestic interested party petition concerning the tariff classification of cane sugar molasses and liquid sugar, as well as all comments received in response to this notice, will be available for public inspection on the docket at
This notice is published in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1516 and 19 CFR 175.21.
Pete Flores, Acting Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign the document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0075, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves point of contact information for the person/organization requesting a TSA speaker; logistical information for that speaking engagement; and context for the request to determine the audience reach, any ethical concerns, and possible promotion of the speaking engagement.
Send your comments by May 23, 2025. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA is submitting the form as a Common Form to permit Federal agency users beyond the agency that created the form (
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0071, that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This collection involves the submission of information from certain current and former TSA employees who are interested in obtaining a Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) Identification (ID) Card, a retired badge, and/or a retired credential.
Send your comments by June 23, 2025.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone at (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA subsequently issued TSA Management Directive (MD) 3500.1,
Under TSA MD 2800.11,
If the employee is approved for a retired badge and/or credential, his or her badge and/or credential will be replicated by TSA and marked with the word “RETIRED,” to indicate that the retired employee no longer has the authority to perform specific official functions pursuant to law, statute, regulation, or DHS Directive. In the case of a retired LEO, the individual is prohibited from using the TSA retired credential as photographic identification for the purposes of the LEOSA.
Under TSA's current application process for these two programs, qualified applicants may apply for a LEOSA ID Card, a retired badge, and/or a retired credential, as applicable, either while still employed by TSA (shortly before separating or retiring) or after they have separated or retired (after they become private citizens,
The LEOSA ID Card Application (TSA Form 2825A) requires collection of identifying information, contact information, official title, separation date, and last known field office. Identifying information, such as the date of birth and social security number, are necessary to confirm the individual's identity and to process the individual through the National Crime Information Center database. Similarly, for purposes of a retired badge and/or credential, TSA Form 2808-R,
Based on current data, TSA estimates 168
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0041, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the submission of ratings and written comments about the quality of training instruction from students who successfully complete TSA instructor-led classroom training at the Canine Training Center (CTC).
Send your comments by May 23, 2025. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The CTC collects the evaluation data to determine students' satisfaction with their learning experience and provides it to representatives at both TSA headquarters and at CTC (
Transportation Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0035, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection requires General Aviation (GA) aircraft operators to designate a security coordinator and adopt a DCA Access Standard Security Program (DASSP). The collection also involves obtaining information for Armed Security Officers (ASOs).
Send your comments by May 23, 2025. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Information Technology, TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 6595 Springfield Center Drive, Springfield, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
As part of the DASSP requirements, individuals designated as security coordinators, ASOs, and flight crewmembers assigned to duty on a GA aircraft flying into and out of DCA must submit fingerprints for a Criminal History Records Check (CHRC). In addition, GA aircraft operators must also maintain CHRC records of all employees and authorized representatives for whom a CHRC has been completed.
Under the Armed Security Officer Program, DASSP approved entities can nominate candidates through an online nomination form. Once approved by TSA to participate, the candidates are vetted for suitability for the program by providing various application materials. A law enforcement employment verification check is then completed. In addition, they are required to submit their fingerprints so that a CHRC can be conducted. Upon successful completion of the application process, a final determination of eligibility is adjudicated. All qualified applicants must then successfully complete a TSA-approved training course.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with regulations governing valuation of gas produced from Indian lands, ONRR is publishing this notice in the
The due date to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices is June 30, 2025.
Robert Sudar, Market & Spatial Analytics, by telephone at (303) 231-3511 or email at
Pursuant to 30 CFR 1206.174(a)(4)(ii), ONRR must publish major portion prices for each designated area that is not associated with an index zone for each production month, as well as the due date to submit any additional royalty payments. If a lessee owes additional royalties, it must submit an amended form ONRR-2014,
The table below lists major portion prices for designated areas that are not associated with an index zone.
For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to ONRR's Dear Payor letter, dated December 1, 1999, which is available at
Notice is hereby given that, on March 20, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of MSSA. Membership in MSSA remains open and MSSA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 26, 2024, MSSA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 17, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 7, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RISE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 2, 2021, RISE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 6, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 10, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The following pre-standards activities associated with IEEE Industry Connections Activities were launched or renewed:
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 19, 2024. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 9, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Alirrium LLC, Reston, VA; Anokiwave, Inc., Billerica, MA; Anritsu Company, Morgan Hill, CA; Applied Insight LLC, Tysons, VA; Blacksky Geospatial Solutions, Inc., Herndon, VA; Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA; DZYNE Technologies, Inc., Fairfax, VA; FedLearn, Inc., Alexandria, VA; G3 Technologies, Inc., Columbia, MD; Integrated Consultants, Inc., San Diego, CA; Iron EagleX, Inc., Tampa, FL; IT Partners, Inc., Herndon, VA; JMA Resources, Inc., Mechanicsburg, PA; La Jolla Logic, San Diego, CA; Logistic Specialties, Inc., Layton, UT; Millennium Corp., Arlington, VA; Na Ali'i Consulting & Sales LLC, Honolulu, HI; NetNumber, Inc., Lowell, MA; Platform Systems, Inc., Hollywood, MD; Robbins-Gioia LLC, Alexandria, VA; Saildrone, Inc., Alameda, CA; Steampunk, Inc., McLean, VA; Teal Stratus Technologies LLC, Fort Mill, SC; TQI Solutions, Inc., Norfolk, VA; TVAR Solutions LLC, McLean, VA; Ventus Executive Solutions LLC, Fairfax, VA; Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Ashburn, VA; XCOM-Labs, Inc., San Diego, CA; and XSB, Inc., East Setauket, NY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IWRP Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 15, 2018, IWRP Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 28, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 2, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, CAM2 Technologies dba RedWave Technology, Danbury, CT; Navmar Applied Sciences Corporation, Warminster, PA; Spectral Labs, Inc., San Diego, CA; and The Informatics Applications Group, Reston, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HSTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 30, 2012, HSTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 19, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on April 14, 2025, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Plasan North America, Inc., Walker, MI, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and EMC
On January 11, 2024, EMC
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 30, 2025. A notice was published in the
On June 6, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to De Novo Services, LLC, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 5. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. RD0424515, alleging that Registrant has committed such acts as would render its registration inconsistent with the public interest.
Specifically, the OSC alleged that between 2013 and 2023, Registrant lacked effective controls and procedures to guard against the diversion of controlled substances, as well as committed numerous recordkeeping violations, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act's (CSA) implementing regulations and Utah state law.
The OSC notified Registrant of its right to file with DEA a written request for hearing and an answer, and that if it failed to file such a request, it would be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
As discussed above, the OSC alleges that Registrant violated provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
Here, the OSC's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration . . . drug security, and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
The OSC alleges that between 2013 and 2023, Registrant lacked effective controls and procedures to guard against the diversion of controlled substances, as well as committed numerous recordkeeping violations. RFAAX 1, at 1. CSA regulations require the following.
Registrants receiving controlled substances must maintain complete and accurate records of all controlled substances received. 21 CFR 1304.21(a). Only a licensed practitioner employed at the facility or another authorized individual, authorized in writing, may accept delivery of controlled substances used in a narcotic treatment program, and such delivery acceptance must be documented by signature of the licensed practitioner or authorized individual. 21 CFR 1301.74(h). Specific authorization is required for an individual or entity to collect controlled substances from ultimate users and other non-registrants for destruction, and destruction of controlled substances generally must be documented on a DEA Form 41. 21 CFR 1304.21(e), 1317.30. When executing a power of attorney, a registrant must provide two witnesses. 21 CFR 1305.05(d). When completing a DEA Form 222, purchasers must note the number of lines completed at the bottom of the form, with each line completed containing an item consisting of one or more commercial or bulk containers of the same finished or bulk form and quantity of the same controlled substance. 21 CFR 1305.12(b). Purchasers must also note on each item of the DEA Form 222 the number of commercial or bulk containers furnished and the dates on which the containers are received by the purchaser. 21 CFR 1305.13(e). Finally, regarding inventories of dispensers and researchers, for each controlled substance in finished form, the inventory must document the specific finished form of the substance (for example, a 10 mg tablet). 21 CFR 1304.11(e)(1)(iii), (e)(6).
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted.
A registrant who is authorized to maintain and/or detoxify controlled substance users in a treatment program is required to keep records for each controlled substance utilized in such a program. 21 CFR 1304.24(a). Registrant is deemed to have admitted that following an on-site inspection by DEA in August 2013, Registrant was mailed a Letter of Admonition specifying Registrant's violation of 21 CFR 1304.24(a) regarding records for maintenance and detoxification treatment programs. RFAAX 1, at 2. Registrant is also deemed to have admitted that it responded to the letter identifying corrective actions it had taken to become compliant.
21 CFR 1304.11 details the inventory requirements for registrants, while 21 CFR 1304.21 details the general requirements for continuing records for registrants. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that following an on-site inspection by DEA in March 2022, Registrant was mailed a Letter of Admonition specifying Registrant's violations of 21 CFR 1304.11(e)(6), 1304.21(d) and other federal regulations. RFAAX 1, at 2. Registrant is also deemed to have admitted that it again responded to the letter identifying corrective actions it had taken to become compliant.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that DEA conducted another on-site inspection on November 27-30, 2023, which revealed a lack of effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion. More specifically, Registrant admits that between March 2022 and June 2023, it allowed two unauthorized persons to accept delivery of Schedule III controlled substances.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between March 2022 and November 2023, thirty-one of its Schedule III controlled substance invoices were incomplete.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that, despite its registration not authorizing the collection of controlled substances, on at least five occasions between March 2022 and November 2023, it collected Schedule I, II, and III controlled substances.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on its dispensing logs for Schedule III controlled substances, it consistently failed to record the names of the substances, the strengths of the substances, the dosage forms of the substances, and the amount and dosage of the substances taken home by the patients.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on both May 3, 2022, and September 6, 2023, J.K. failed to properly fill out a DEA Form 222 (Order Request Form).
Finally, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between March 2022 and November 2023, Registrant failed to maintain complete and accurate records and, due to that failure, DEA Investigators were unable to conduct an accountability audit for controlled substances.
Pursuant to the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
According to Agency decisions, the Agency “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
The Agency further finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of denial of Registrant's application and that Registrant's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest in balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Here, the Government has met its
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and did not otherwise avail itself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Registrant's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Registrant did not convince the Agency that it can be entrusted with a registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Registrant's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
Accordingly, I shall order the sanction the Government requested, as contained in the Order below.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. RD0424515 issued to De Novo Services, LLC. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of De Novo Services, LLC, to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of De Novo Services, LLC, for additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective May 23, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 18, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia against Frazier T. Boyd III and Boyd Farm LLC (collectively “Defendants”), pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), and Virginia's State Water Control Law, Va. Code § 62.1-44.5(A)(2)-(4), to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the Clean Water Act and State Water Control Law by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States and waters of the State. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to restore impacted areas, perform mitigation and pay a civil penalty.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Laura Brown, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, or to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 255 West Main Street, Room 304, Charlottesville, VA 22902. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
Notice.
This notice announces that the prior guidance in Notice of Report on Lawful Uses of Race or Sex in Federal Contracting Programs, published in the
This recission is effective April 23, 2025.
Andrew Braniff, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, (202) 514-3831,
The Department is rescinding the Notice of Report on Lawful Uses of Race or Sex in Federal Contracting Programs 87 FR 4955 (Jan. 31, 2022) (“2022 Guidance”), because, after it issued, federal courts have developed a substantial body of contradictory precedent interpreting the
Additionally, the 2022 Guidance is inconsistent with Executive Order 14151 of January 20, 2025,
The 2022 Guidance that was published in the
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Notice.
Pursuant to The Executive Office of the President Appropriations Act, 2022, the Office of Management and Budget is publishing its delegation of apportionment authority to respond to a continuity event.
This delegation became effective on April 18, 2025.
Heather V. Walsh at 202-395-3642 or
I hereby delegate to the following individuals, in order of succession, the authorities delegated by the President to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for apportioning funds pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1513 when the Program Associate Director (PAD) (to whom such apportionment authority was previously delegated by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget) with current apportionment authority for an account is not available to apportion or reapportion the account because of a continuity event:
This delegation of authority will remain in place until revised or revoked, and it may not be re delegated by the individual to whom it has been delegated. The delegation does not limit the authority of the Director to exercise the delegated authority.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comment.
The NCUA has approved the publication of a proposal to extend for three years the NCUA Call Report (Form 5300), which is a currently approved information collection, for public comment. Revised instructions are included to improve clarity and accurate reporting. The NCUA is submitting the following extension of the currently approved information collection and revised instructions to the OMB for review and clearance. The revised instructions are proposed to take effect with the September 30, 2025 report date.
Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
You may submit written comments on the information collection by any of the following methods:
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dacia Rogers at (703) 518-6547. You may also view the entire information collection request at
The NCUA is proposing a three-year extension of the NCUA Form 5300 Call Report with revised instructions.
The proposed revisions to the Form 5300 instructions in this notice would not have a material impact on the existing burden estimates.
The data credit unions report on the Call Report is essential to the NCUA's supervision and regulation of federal credit unions. This information also facilitates the NCUA's monitoring of other credit unions with Share Insurance Fund coverage for share accounts.
Credit unions submit quarterly Call Report data to the NCUA. Call Report data serves a regulatory or public policy purpose by assisting the NCUA in fulfilling its mission of ensuring the safety and soundness of individual credit unions and the credit union system, protecting consumer financial rights, as well as agency-specific missions affecting federal and state-chartered credit unions, such as ensuring financial stability and administering share insurance.
There are no proposed changes to the Form 5300 Call Report. However, the NCUA is proposing revisions to the 5300 Call Report Instructions to improve clarity and accurate reporting. These revisions are captured on page two of the draft 5300 Call Report Instructions.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit comments concerning: (a) whether the proposed revisions to the instructions for the collection of information that are the subject of this notice are necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information as proposed to be revised, 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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice and request for comments.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2025 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the information collection to Dacia Rogers, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Suite 6070; Fax No. (703) 519-8161; or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by contacting Dacia Rogers at (703) 518-6547.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-362, to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, the licensee) located in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The renewed license authorizes NIST to continue to possess and use SNM for a period of 10 years and will expire on April 10, 2035.
License No. SNM-362 was issued on April 10, 2025, and is effective as of the date of issuance.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0184 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Osiris Siurano-Pérez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7827; email:
NIST is a Federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Under the SNM-362 license, NIST uses licensed materials for research, development, calibration, and testing activities. NIST also develops, maintains, and disseminates national standards for ionizing radiation and radioactivity to support health care, industry, and homeland security at its Gaithersburg, Maryland site. The quantity of SNM possessed and used by NIST requires an NRC-issued SNM license pursuant to part 70 of title 10 of the
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC is providing notice of the issuance of renewal of a 10 CFR part 70 license, SNM-362, to NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The license authorizes NIST to possess and use SNM for research, development, calibration, and testing activities at its Gaithersburg site. NIST's original license renewal application (LRA) for a 10-year license was made by letter dated August 8, 2023. The term of NIST's license, which also recognizes NIST as a Type A Broad Scope License pursuant to 10 CFR part 33, “Specific Domestic Licenses of Broad Scope for Byproduct Material,” expired on September 9, 2023. The NRC staff performed an acceptance review of NIST's application and by letter dated October 6, 2023, notified NIST that the LRA contained sufficient information to proceed with its detailed technical review. NIST was also notified that, since it filed its LRA at least 30 days before the license's expiration date, pursuant to the timely renewal provisions in 10 CFR 70.38(a), NIST was permitted to continue using its SNM in accordance with the existing SNM-362 license, pending a final decision by the Commission on the LRA.
On November 16, 2023, a notice of receipt of NIST's LRA with an opportunity for the public to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene was published in the
The LRA was subsequently supplemented by letter dated March 11, 2024. The letter included a revised version of NIST's LRA. The revised version of the LRA is a standalone document that integrates the information provided in NIST's responses to an NRC staff's requests for additional information dated February 9, 2024.
The NRC staff determined that NIST's proposed licensed activities meet the categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(v) for the use of radioactive materials for research and development and for educational purposes. Therefore, an environmental assessment and an environmental impact statement are not required for the renewal of the SNM-1373 license.
The NRC finds that the renewed license complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's rules and regulations as set forth in 10 CFR chapter 1. Accordingly, the renewed license issued on April 10, 2025, is effective as of the date of issuance. The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) for the renewal of license SNM-362 and concluded that NIST can continue to use and possess SNM in accordance with its license without endangering the health and safety of the public, and that this action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment for the duration of the license.
Documents related to this action, including the license renewal application and other supporting documentation, are available to interested persons as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recent filing by the Postal Service of specific rates for its Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product effective January 1, 2026. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On April 15, 2025, the Postal Service filed a notice of rates not of general applicability for Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters (Inbound E-format Letter Post), and a notice of minor classification changes to
In its Notice, the Postal Service proposes new prices for the Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters product.
The Postal Service also proposes minor classification changes to MCS section 2340 concerning Inbound Letter Post Small Packets and Bulky Letters, pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.190.
The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2025-6 and MC2025-1310 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.101(q)(3) and 3040.191(d), the Commission appoints Katalin Clendenin to serve as Public Representative in these dockets. The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632 and 3633 and other appliable policies and criteria of chapter 36 of Title 39 of the United States Code, 39 CFR 3035.105 and .107, 3040.190-192, and any applicable Commission directives and orders. Comments are due no later than April 24, 2025. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's website (
1. The Commission establishes Docket Nos. CP2025-6 and MC2025-1310 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Comments are due no later than April 24, 2025.
3. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.101(q)(3) and 3040.191(d), Katalin Clendenin will serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these dockets.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Friday, April 18, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW.
Closed.
On April 18, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC. The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable. The Board considered the below matters.
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Under Section 8 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) (45 U.S.C. 358), the RRB determines the amount of an employer's contribution, primarily on the basis of the RUIA benefits paid, both unemployment and sickness, to the employees of the railroad employer. These experienced-based contributions take into account the frequency, volume, and duration of the employees' unemployment and sickness benefits. Each employer's contribution rate includes a component for administrative expenses as well as a component to cover costs shared by all employers. The regulations prescribing the manner and conditions for remitting the contributions and for adjusting overpayments or underpayments of contributions are contained in 20 CFR 345.
RRB Form DC-1, Employer's Quarterly Report of Contributions under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, is used by railroad employers to report and remit their quarterly contributions to the RRB. Employers can use either the manual version of the form or its internet equivalent. One response is requested quarterly of each respondent and completion is mandatory. The RRB proposes the following changes to the manual and electronic versions of Form DC-1:
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Form instruction: Updated the Paperwork Reduction Act section and instructions to match field name changes to the form.
Section 2(c) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a), provides for the payment of annuities to spouses of railroad retirement annuitants who meet the requirements under the RRA. The age requirements for a spouse annuity depend on the employee's age, date of retirement, and years of railroad service. The requirements relating to the annuities are prescribed in 20 CFR 216, 218, 219, 232, 234, and 295.
To collect the information needed to help determine an applicant's entitlement to, and the amount of, a spouse annuity the RRB uses non-OMB Form AA-3,
The AA-3 application process gathers information from an applicant about their marital history, work history, benefits from other government agencies, and Medicare entitlement for a spouse annuity. An RRB representative interviews the applicant either at a field office (preferred), an itinerant point, or by telephone. During the interview, the RRB representative enters the information obtained into an on-line information system. Upon completion of the interview, the system generates, for the applicant's review, either Form AA-3cert or AA-3sum, which is a summary of the information that the applicant provided or verified. Form AA-3cert,
The RRB proposes no changes to Forms AA-3cert. The RRB proposes the following minor editorial changes to Form AA-3sum:
• Updated “(Printed if application type is Spouse or Spouse with child and spouse is FRA or older/under FRA.)” sections to remove ambiguity.
• Updated office hours information and provided a link to the RRB website and tollfree number.
To support an application for an annuity under Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (45 U.S.C. 231a) or for unemployment benefits under Section 2 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) (45 U.S.C. 352), pertinent information and proofs must be furnished for the RRB to determine benefit entitlement. Circumstances may require an applicant or other person(s) having knowledge of facts relevant to the applicant's eligibility for an annuity or benefits to provide written statements supplementing or changing statements previously provided by the applicant. Under the railroad retirement program these statements may relate to a change in an annuity beginning date(s), date of marriage(s), birth(s), prior railroad or non-railroad employment, an applicant's request for reconsideration of an unfavorable RRB eligibility determination for an annuity or various other matters. The statements may also be used by the RRB to secure a variety of information needed to determine eligibility to unemployment and sickness benefits. Procedures related to providing information needed for RRA annuity or RUIA benefit eligibility determinations are prescribed in 20 CFR 217 and 320 respectively.
The RRB utilizes Form G-93,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Sapphire Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Sapphire Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member and approval by the Exchange, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Currently, Exchange Rule 208 provides that every Member must designate a Clearing Member for the payment of the Member's Exchange invoices and vendor invoices for Exchange-related services assessed by the Exchange by means of the Exchange's MIAX Sapphire Billing System. The designated Clearing Member shall pay to the Exchange on a timely basis the full amount of each monthly Exchange invoice. Such payments shall be drafted by the Exchange against the designated Clearing Member's account at the Clearing Corporation.
The proposed rule change would provide that the Exchange will, upon request, waive the requirement for a Member to designate a Clearing Member and instead require such Member to provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit certain fees, as determined by the Exchange; provided, however, that the Exchange reserves the right to require any such Member to designate a Clearing Member for such purposes as set forth above if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such alternative payment instructions.
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide the Exchange with the flexibility to agree to an alternative payment arrangement with a Member if such Member so requests, as the Exchange understands that certain Members may have an operational burden associated with remitting payment to the Exchange through a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation. Under the proposed rule change, any such alternative payment instructions must: (i) be agreed to by the Exchange for a specified fee; and (ii) permit the Exchange to initiate the debit of any fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange in a manner similar to the current requirement with respect to a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation (
The Exchange notes that several exchanges provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change to enable the Exchange, upon request, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Additionally, as this proposed change is designed to give the Exchange and its Members flexibility regarding their payment arrangements while providing a safeguard by which the Exchange may revert to its standard collection process, the Exchange believes it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. This proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is based on objective standards and would apply equally to all Members for registration as such, as described above. The proposed change is also based on billing and collection rules in place at several equity exchanges, which provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to enable the Exchange to agree to alternative payment instructions for the Exchange's direct debit collection process would apply equally to all Members as the opportunity to request that the Exchange agree to alternative payment instructions will be available to any such Member and the Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions would be exercised uniformly on an objective basis.
The Exchange does not believe such proposed changes would impair the ability of Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets, and therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition. Moreover, because the proposed changes would apply equally to all Members, the Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose any burden on intramarket competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 18, 2025, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member and approval by the Exchange, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Currently, Exchange Rule 208 provides that every Member must designate a Clearing Member for the payment of the Member's Exchange invoices and vendor invoices for Exchange-related services assessed by the Exchange by means of the Exchange's MIAX Billing System (“MBS”). The designated Clearing Member shall pay to the Exchange on a timely basis the full amount of each monthly Exchange invoice. Such payments shall be drafted by the Exchange against the designated Clearing Member's account at the Clearing Corporation.
The proposed rule change would provide that the Exchange will, upon request, waive the requirement for a Member to designate a Clearing Member and instead require such Member to provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit certain fees, as determined by the Exchange; provided, however, that the Exchange reserves the right to require any such Member to designate a Clearing Member for such purposes as set forth above if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such alternative payment instructions.
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide the Exchange with the flexibility to agree to an alternative payment arrangement with a Member if such Member so requests, as the Exchange understands that certain Members may have an operational burden associated with remitting payment to the Exchange through a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation. Under the proposed rule change, any such alternative payment instructions must: (i) be agreed to by the Exchange for a specified fee; and (ii) permit the Exchange to initiate the debit of any fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange in a manner similar to the current requirement with respect to a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation (
The Exchange notes that several exchanges provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
The Exchange believes the proposed change to enable the Exchange, upon request, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to enable the Exchange to agree to alternative payment instructions for the Exchange's direct debit collection process would apply equally to all Members as the opportunity to request that the Exchange agree to alternative payment instructions will be available to any such Member and the Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions would be exercised uniformly on an objective basis.
The Exchange does not believe such proposed changes would impair the ability of Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets, and therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition. Moreover, because the proposed changes would apply equally to all Members, the Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose any burden on intramarket competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b 4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to (1) adopt an alternative means of qualifying for Initiating Participant Credits for the single-leg CUBE Auction based on monthly executions of initiating Complex CUBE Orders; and (2) to adopt, for each CUBE Auction type, a new Initiating Participant Rebate for ATP Holders that that qualify for Tier B of the Professional Volume Incentive Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective April 15, 2025.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to (1) adopt an alternative means of qualifying for Initiating Participant Credits for the single-leg CUBE Auction based on monthly executions of initiating Complex CUBE Orders; and (2) to adopt a new Initiating Participant Rebate for ATP Holders that that qualify for Tier B of the Professional Volume Incentive Program, which rebate is available in each CUBE Auction (
The Exchange offers certain “Initiating Participant” credits and rebates to ATP Holders that submit “CUBE Orders” to its Customer Best Execution (“CUBE”) Auctions.
Currently, the Exchange also offers certain Initiating Participant Rebates, payable in addition to the Initiating Participant Credits, including (but not limited to) the American Customer Engagement (“ACE”) Initiating Participant Rebate, which is available to ACE participants in all CUBE Auctions.
The Professional Volume Incentive (the “Incentive”) offers qualifying ATP Holders discounted rates on their total monthly Professional Volume and credits on their monthly Customer Electronic volume at the same rate as participants that achieve Tier 1 in the ACE Program.
To the extent that the proposed modifications continue to encourage ATP Holders to initiate CUBE Auctions—whether single-leg, complex, or AON—and to further incent ATP Holders to increase their Professional and Customer volume on the Exchange, all market participants stand to benefit from increased liquidity and opportunities for price improvement. Increased order flow promotes market depth, facilitates tighter spreads and enhances price discovery, which enhances market quality for all participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
In response to these competitive forces and as discussed herein, the Exchange has established various pricing incentives regarding its CUBE Auctions, including (but not limited to) the (base and enhanced) Initiating Participant credits and various Initiating Participant rebates that are designed to encourage ATP Holders to utilize the Auction and to direct (increased) volume to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change to offer an alternative means to achieve an enhanced Initiating Participant credit—in the same amount as is currently available—for the single-leg CUBE Auction is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the Exchange is merely offering ATP Holders another way to earn the same enhanced credits, with the difference being that the proposed credits are tied to initiating Complex CUBE (inclusive of AON Complex CUBE) volume (rather than electronic Complex Order volume). As such, the proposed change does not alter an ATP Holder's ability to (continue to) qualify for the existing enhanced Initiating Participant credit. The proposed alternative qualification basis is reasonable because it is designed to encourage ATP Holders to utilizes both the single-leg and Complex CUBE Auction mechanisms, which may incent ATP Holders to direct their paired-auction volume—as well as other volume—to the Exchange, which increased liquidity promotes market depth and enhances market quality to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of credits and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange. ATP Holders are not obligated to participate in CUBE Auctions or to attempt to achieve the proposed enhanced Initiating Participant credit. In addition, the proposed change will apply equally to all similarly-situated ATP Holders.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change to adopt a new Professional IP Rebate that will be available to ATP Holders that initiate CUBE Auctions on the Exchange, is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the addition of this Rebate does not alter an ATP Holder's ability to qualify for the existing rebates, which rebates are not being altered by this proposal. In addition, the proposed Rebate provides all ATP Holders (including ACE program participants) another avenue through which to earn a Rebate for their initiating CUBE Order volume. Further, this proposed Rebate is designed to allow ATP Holders that do not participate in the ACE Program—and are therefore not eligible for the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate—an opportunity to qualify for a Rebate. The Exchange notes that the proposed Rebate would operate in the same manner as existing rebates such that ATP Holders may only receive the highest rebate achieved and, in the case of AON CUBE Auctions, that AON CUBE Orders executed by a Floor Broker are not eligible for the proposed Rebate. Moreover, the proposed Professional IP Rebate is reasonable because it is designed to encourage ATP Holders to utilize the CUBE Auction mechanisms as well as to increase their (qualifying) Professional volume, which may incent ATP Holders to use the Exchange as their primary trading venue. To the extent the proposed Rebate increases order flow directed to the Exchange, this increased liquidity will promote market depth and enhance market quality to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Professional IP Rebate represents an equitable allocation of credits/rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange. ATP Holders are not obligated to participate in CUBE Auctions or to attempt to achieve the proposed Rebate by increasing (or directing) qualifying Professional order flow to the Exchange. In addition, the proposed change will apply equally to all similarly-situated ATP Holders. Further, like the proposed Rebate, which is designed to encourage Professional order flow, the Exchange currently offers pricing incentives designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct certain types of order flow to the Exchange, including the ACE Program and the ACE Initiating Participant Rebate. In addition, the Exchange offers pricing incentives designed to encourage activity by certain market participants (
To the extent that the proposed changes attract more executions to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would continue to encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing
The Exchange believes that this proposal to offer an alternative means of achieving existing Initiating Participant Credits and to adopt a new Professional IP Rebate does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes apply equally to all similarly-situated ATP Holders. Further, the proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange and ATP Holders are not obligated to participate in CUBE Auctions or to avail themselves of the proposed Rebate. In addition, the proposed Rebate is similar to existing pricing incentives designed to increase certain types of order flow (
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one of the other 17 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment as it is designed to encourage ATP Holders to direct trading interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to amend its Fees Schedule relating to the Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) from $0.0017 per contract side to $0.0023 per contract side,
Today, ORF is assessed by Cboe Options to each Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business including performing routine surveillances, investigations, examinations, financial monitoring, and policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. Regulatory costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct expenses include in-house and third-party service provider costs to support the day-to-day regulatory work such as surveillances, investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support from such areas as human resources, legal, compliance, information technology, facilities and accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately 38% of Cboe Options' total regulatory costs for 2025. Thus, direct expenses are estimated to be approximately 62% of total regulatory costs for 2025. In addition, based on Cboe Options' analysis of its regulatory work associated with options regulation, and considering other regulatory revenue, it is Cboe Options' practice that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may be subject to change. Currently, and for quite some time now, Cboe Options has been collecting significantly lower than the 75% threshold. Under the current rate, Cboe Options forecasts for 2025 to collect closer to 43%. Even with this proposed increase, the forecast only goes up to approximately 54%.
The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs in a given year, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. Although Cboe Options has been collecting at levels that do not cover a material portion of its regulatory expenses, it has not raised its rate for quite some time now but for this proposal.
The Exchange also notifies TPHs of adjustments to the ORF via an Exchange Notice, including for the change being proposed herein.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs.
Cboe Options appreciates the evolving changes in the markets and regulatory environment and has been evaluating its options while considering industry and regulatory feedback. In light of this, the Exchange has recently been reviewing its current methodologies and practices for the assessment and collection of ORF. As a result of this review, the Exchange plans to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF, which would be subject to, and described further in, a future rule filing. Particularly, the Exchange anticipates moving to a modified ORF model in which ORF would only be assessed to on-exchange transactions. And at this this time, Cboe Options expects to continue assessing ORF to on-exchange transactions that clear in the customer range at OCC. Further, Cboe Options expects to continue its current practice that revenue generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs. And as is Cboe Options' practice today, revenue generated by ORF will not be used for non-regulatory purposes.
To create real ORF reform, moving to a new ORF model that only assesses a fee to transactions that occur on one's own options exchange seems right. However, for a new, modified model to be truly meaningful and fair, a rate limited to transactions on one's own exchange should be adopted by all options exchanges to provide a consistent methodology in assessing and collecting ORF going forward. Cboe Options is committed to switching to this new model as soon as a consistent framework has been established with the SEC, adopted by all the options exchanges and necessary regulatory filings submitted. Until that time, Cboe Options believes it's fair and reasonable to temporarily raise the current rate under the existing model.
In light of the Exchange's anticipated proposal to revamp ORF, the Exchange also proposes to adopt a sunset date of December 31, 2025 for the current proposed rate of $0.0023 per contract side, at which point the Exchange would revert back to current ORF rate of $0.0017 per contract side. The proposed sunset date will provide time for the Exchange to discuss its anticipated, or potential alternative, ORF model with TPHs towards establishment of one new, unified model going forward. The Exchange will endeavor however to implement the modified ORF structure noted above prior to the proposed December 31 sunset date (
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total regulatory costs. As discussed, the Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that would be less than or equal to 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the practice across the options industry and the view of the Commission that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business side. The Exchange determined to increase ORF after its semi-annual review of its regulatory costs and regulatory revenues, which includes revenues from ORF and other regulatory fees and fines. When taking into account recent options volume, coupled with the anticipated regulatory fees and anticipated reductions in other regulatory fees, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to increase the ORF. Particularly, the proposed change is reasonable as it would offset the anticipated increased regulatory costs, while still not exceeding 75% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the proposed amount is still lower than the amount of ORF assessed on other exchanges
As noted above, the Exchange will also continue to monitor on at least a semi-annual basis the amount of
The Exchange also believes the proposed fee change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all TPHs on all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC. The Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. For example, there are costs associated with main office and branch office examinations (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because ORF applies to all customer activity, thereby raising regulatory revenue to offset regulatory expenses. It also supplements the regulatory revenue derived from non-customer activity. The Exchange notes, however, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Indeed, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Emerald Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Emerald Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member and approval by the Exchange, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Currently, Exchange Rule 208 provides that every Member must designate a Clearing Member for the payment of the Member's Exchange invoices and vendor invoices for Exchange-related services assessed by the Exchange by means of the Exchange's MIAX Emerald Billing System (“EBS”). The designated Clearing Member shall pay to the Exchange on a timely basis the full amount of each monthly Exchange invoice. Such payments shall be drafted by the Exchange against the designated Clearing Member's account at the Clearing Corporation.
The proposed rule change would provide that the Exchange will, upon request, waive the requirement for a Member to designate a Clearing Member and instead require such Member to provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit certain fees, as determined by the Exchange; provided, however, that the Exchange reserves the right to require any such Member to designate a Clearing Member for such purposes as set forth above if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such alternative payment instructions.
The purpose of the proposed change is to provide the Exchange with the flexibility to agree to an alternative payment arrangement with a Member if such Member so requests, as the Exchange understands that certain Members may have an operational burden associated with remitting payment to the Exchange through a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation. Under the proposed rule change, any such alternative payment instructions must: (i) be agreed to by the Exchange for a specified fee; and (ii) permit the Exchange to initiate the debit of any fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange in a manner similar to the current requirement with respect to a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation (
The Exchange notes that several exchanges provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change to enable the Exchange, upon request, to permit a Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Additionally, as this proposed change is designed to give the Exchange and its Members flexibility regarding their payment arrangements while providing a safeguard by which the Exchange may revert to its standard collection process, the Exchange believes it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. This proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is based on objective standards and would apply equally to all Members for registration as such, as described above.
The proposed change is also based on billing and collection rules in place at several equity exchanges, which provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to enable the Exchange to agree to alternative payment instructions for the Exchange's direct debit collection process would apply equally to all Members as the opportunity to request that the Exchange agree to alternative payment instructions will be available to any such Member and the Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions would be exercised uniformly on an objective basis.
The Exchange does not believe such proposed changes would impair the ability of Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets, and therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition. Moreover, because the proposed changes would apply equally to all Members, the Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose any burden on intramarket competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (1) amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Pearl Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, MIAX Pearl included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. MIAX Pearl has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to: (1) amend Exchange Rule 208, MIAX Pearl Billing System, to enable the Exchange, upon request by the Member and approval by the Exchange, to permit an Exchange Member to provide alternative payment instructions (
Currently, Exchange Rule 208 provides that every Member must designate a Clearing Member for the payment of the Member's Exchange invoices and vendor invoices for Exchange-related services assessed by the Exchange by means of the Exchange's MIAX Pearl Billing System (“PBS”). The designated Clearing Member shall pay to the Exchange on a timely basis the full amount of each monthly Exchange invoice. Such payments shall be drafted by the Exchange against the designated Clearing Member's account at the Clearing Corporation.
The proposed rule change to Exchange Rule 208 would provide that the Exchange will, upon request, waive the requirement for a Member to designate a Clearing Member and instead require such Member to provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit certain fees, as determined by the Exchange; provided, however, that the Exchange reserves the right to require any such Member to designate a Clearing Member for such purposes as set forth above if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such alternative payment instructions.
Currently, MIAX Pearl Equities Rule 3002 provides that every Equity Member, and all applicants for registration as such, must provide a clearing account number at NSCC for purposes of permitting MIAX Pearl Equities to debit any undisputed or final fees, fines, charges and/or other monetary sanctions or other monies due and owing to MIAX Pearl Equities, or other charges pursuant to MIAX Pearl Equities Rule 3000, including the MIAX Pearl Equities Fee Schedule; Regulatory Transaction fees pursuant to MIAX Pearl Equities Rule 3000(b); dues, assessments and other charges pursuant to MIAX Pearl Equities Rules 1202 and 1203 to the extent MIAX Pearl Equities was to determine to charge such fees; and fines, sanctions and other charges pursuant to Chapters IX, X, and XI of the Exchange Rulebook which are due and owing to MIAX Pearl Equities.
The proposed rule change to MIAX Pearl Equities Rule 3002 would provide that MIAX Pearl Equities will, upon request, waive the requirement for an Equity Member to provide a clearing account number for an account at the NSCC and instead require such Equity Member to provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit certain fees, as determined by the Exchange; provided, however, that the Exchange reserves the right to require any such Equity Member to provide a clearing account number for an account at the NSCC for such purposes as set forth above if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such alternative payment instructions.
The purpose of the proposed changes is to provide the Exchange and MIAX Pearl Equities with the flexibility to agree to an alternative payment arrangement with a Member (or Equity Member, as the case may be) if such Member (or Equity Member) so requests, as the Exchange understands that certain Members (or Equity Members) may have an operational burden associated with remitting payment to the Exchange through a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation, or through a designated clearing account number at NSCC. Under the proposed rule changes, any such alternative payment instructions must: (i) be agreed to by the Exchange (or MIAX Pearl Equities) for a specified fee; and (ii) permit the Exchange (or MIAX Pearl Equities) to initiate the debit of any fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange (or MIAX Pearl Equities) in a manner similar to the current requirements with respect to a Clearing Member's account with the Clearing Corporation or by providing a clearing account number for an account at NSCC (
The Exchange notes that several exchanges provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed change to enable the Exchange (or MIAX Pearl Equities), upon request, to permit a Member (or Equity Member) to provide alternative payment instructions (
Additionally, these proposed changes are designed to give the Exchange and its Members (and Equity Members) flexibility regarding their payment arrangements while providing a safeguard by which the Exchange may revert to its standard collection process, the Exchange believes it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. The proposed changes are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on objective standards and would apply equally to all Members and Equity Members for registration as such, as described above.
The proposed changes are also based on billing and collection rules in place at several equity exchanges, which provide for substantively similar alternative payment provisions in their billing rules for equity members that may want to pay exchange fees via an alternative method.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change to enable the Exchange to agree to alternative payment instructions for the Exchange's direct debit collection process would apply equally to all Members and Equity Members as the opportunity to request that the Exchange agree to alternative payment instructions will be available to any such Member or Equity Member and the Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions would be exercised uniformly on an objective basis.
The Exchange does not believe such proposed changes would impair the ability of Members or Equity Members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets, and therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition. Moreover, because the proposed changes would apply equally to all Members and Equity Members, the Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose any burden on intramarket competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes (1) a new Section 108.00 (“Principal Underwriter”) in the NYSE Listed Company Manual establishing requirements for the engagement of the principal underwriter by an issuer seeking approval for initial listing in connection with a transaction involving an underwriter; and (2) amendments to Rule 2 and a new Rule 310 establishing a category of market participant granted access to the Exchange for the limited purpose of performing underwriting activity as a principal underwriter and imposing related requirements for principal underwriting activity. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes a new Section 108.00 (“Principal Underwriter”) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”), requiring that any issuer applying to list in connection with a transaction involving an underwriter must have a principal underwriter that is a member organization as defined in Rule 2 of the rules of the Exchange or a Limited Underwriting Member, as defined in proposed Rule 2(k) of the rules of the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes amendments to Rule 2 (“Member,” “Membership,” “Member Firm,” etc.) and a new Rule 310 titled “Limited Underwriting Members and Associated Persons” establishing a category of market participant that is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and that would qualify as a “Limited Underwriting Member” for purposes of proposed Section 108.00 of the Manual. Proposed Section 108.00 is based on Rule 5210 and proposed Rule 310 is based on General 3, Rule 1031 of the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
Nasdaq recently created a new, non-trading limited underwriter membership class and imposed related requirements for principal underwriting activity.
The Exchange similarly proposes to establish a category of market participant known as “Limited Underwriting Member” that would be granted access to the Exchange for the limited purpose of acting as a principal underwriter
Rather, Limited Underwriting Members would fall within Rule 2(b)(ii), which provides that a member organization also includes any registered broker or dealer which does not own a trading license and agrees to be regulated by the Exchange as a member organization and which the Exchange has agreed to regulate.
To effectuate these changes, the Exchange would amend Rule 2 as follows. First, the Exchange would add the clause “, including Limited Underwriting Members as defined herein” at the end of Rule 2(b)(ii). As amended, Rule 2(b)(ii) would provide (additions italicized):
The term “member organization” also includes any registered broker or dealer which does not own a trading license and agrees to be regulated by the Exchange as a member organization and which the Exchange has agreed to regulate,
Second, the Exchange would add a new subsection (k) that would provide that the term “Limited Underwriting Member” means a registered broker or dealer that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange solely for purposes of Rule 310 and the rules enumerated in Rule 310(c)(1). The proposed definition is substantially similar to General 1, Nasdaq Rule 1(b)(20) defining a “Limited Underwriting Member” as a broker or dealer admitted to limited underwriting membership in Nasdaq. The Exchange does not propose to adopt language similar to General 3, Nasdaq Rule 1031(c)(1), which provides that for purposes of interpreting and applying its rules relating to Limited Underwriting Members, references to “Member,” “Members,” or “membership” shall be functionally equivalent to “Limited Underwriting Member,” “Limited Underwriting Members,” or “limited underwriting membership” respectively. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 2(b)(ii) render it unnecessary for the Exchange to adopt the language from the Nasdaq rule.
The Exchange would also add a new Rule 310 titled “Limited Underwriting Members and Associated Persons” governing eligibility, access and rules applicable to proposed Limited Underwriting Members. As proposed, any registered broker or dealer with a disciplinary history satisfactory to the Exchange would be eligible for approval by the Exchange to operate as a Limited Underwriting Member, except such registered brokers or dealers as are excluded under Rule 346 (Statutory Disqualification—Association of Member Organizations, and Persons Associated With Member Organizations).
Pursuant to proposed Rule 310(b) (Access to the Exchange), approval by the Exchange to operate as a Limited Underwriting Member provides no rights to transact on the Exchange. As proposed, approval by the Exchange of a firm to operate as a Limited Underwriting Member would solely permit such firm to act as a principal underwriter (an “Initial Listing Principal Underwriter”) of an underwritten public offering in connection with which a company seeks to list on the Exchange. A firm that is not an Exchange member organization cannot act as an Initial Listing Principal Underwriter unless such firm is a Limited Underwriting Member. These requirements are similar to Nasdaq Rule General 3, Nasdaq Rule 1031(b), except, as noted, proposed Limited Underwriting Members would not be Exchange member organizations.
The Exchange proposes to apply a limited ruleset to Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons aimed at maintaining the fairness and integrity of the underwriting process on the Exchange. Like Nasdaq, the Exchange proposes to apply: (1) conduct rules relevant to underwriting activity; (2) supervision rules; (3) applicable fee-related rules; and (4) disciplinary rules. Finally, although Nasdaq applied certain administrative, business continuity, and registration-related rules (for example, certain rules set forth in Nasdaq General 2 and 4), the Exchange does not propose applying analogous Exchange rules (where such rules exist), because Limited Underwriting Members already would be subject to similar requirements under FINRA rules.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide in proposed Rule 310(c)(1) (Rules Applicable to Limited Underwriting Members) that Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons would be subject only to the following rules: Rule 0 (Regulation of the Exchange and its Member Organizations); Rule 2B.1 (Affiliation between Exchange and a Member Organization); Rule 308 (Acceptability Proceedings); Rule 309 (Collection of and Failure to Pay Exchange Fees); Rule 345.14 (Payment of fees); Rule 346 (Statutory Disqualification—Association of Member Organizations, and Persons Associated With Member Organizations); Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade); Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices); Rule 2050 (Other Offenses); Rule 6140 (Other Trading Practices) (to be grouped together in proposed Rule 310(c) as “Conduct Rules”); Rule 3110 (Supervision); Rule 3120 (Supervisory Control Systems); Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others); Rule 5190 (Notification Requirements for Offering Participants); Rules 8000-8330 (Disciplinary Rules (Investigations and Sanctions)), with the exception of Rule 8211(Automated Submission of Trading Data Requested by the Exchange) and Rule 9557 (Procedures for Regulating Activities Under Rules 4110, 4120 and 4130 Regarding a Member Organization Experiencing Financial or Operational Difficulties); and Rules 9000-9870 (Disciplinary Rules (Procedural)).
The Exchange proposes to apply Rule 0 (Regulation of the Exchange and its Member Organizations) in order to apply requirements related to the Exchange's Regulatory Services Agreement with FINRA set forth in subsection (a) as well as the requirements in subsection (b) that Exchange Rules apply to all member organizations and persons associated with member organizations, and that persons associated with a member organization have the same duties and obligations as a member organization under Exchange Rules.
The Exchange proposes to apply Rule 2B.1 (Affiliation between Exchange and a Member Organization) in order to apply the limitations on affiliation between the Exchange and a Limited Underwriting Member.
The Exchange proposes to apply Rule 308 (Acceptability Proceedings) to proposed Limited Underwriting Members in order to permit challenges to Exchange disapprovals of Limited Underwriting Member applications.
The Exchange proposes to apply Rule 309 to facilitate the Exchange's ability to collect fees for Limited Underwriting Members.
In addition, the Exchange would apply Rule 346 (Statutory Disqualification—Association of Member Organizations, and Persons Associated With Member Organizations) to Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons. As noted above, under proposed Rule 310(a)(i) registered brokers or dealers subject to Rule 346 would be ineligible to become a Limited Underwriting Member. Under proposed Rule 310(a)(ii), persons subject to Rule 346 would similarly be ineligible to be associated with a Limited Underwriting Member. Applying Rule 346 to Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons would cover statutory disqualifications that could arise after a broker or dealer becomes a Limited Underwriting Member.
The Exchange also proposes to apply certain conduct rules
Rule 3110 requires each member organization to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and with applicable Exchange rules. Rule 3120 requires each member organization to have a system of supervisory control policies and procedures that tests and verifies that member organization's supervisory procedures are reasonably designed with respect to the activities of the member organization and its associated persons, to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. The Exchange believes it is important to apply these provisions on supervision as it would provide the Exchange with authority to assess whether a Limited Underwriting Member has adequate supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures in place.
Rule 3220 prohibits members, member organizations, or persons associated with a member organization from directly or indirectly giving or permitting to be given anything of value, including gratuities, in excess of one hundred dollars per individual per year to any person, principal, proprietor, employee, agent or representative of another person where such payment or gratuity is in relation to the business of the employer of the recipient of the payment or gratuity. Under the rule, a gift of any kind is considered a gratuity. The Exchange believes that applying these provisions against a Limited Underwriting Member would mitigate the risks of bribery and undue influence that the rule was intended to address.
Rule 5190 sets forth notice requirements applicable to all member organizations participating in offerings of securities for purposes of monitoring compliance with the provisions of SEC Regulation M. In addition to the requirements under Rule 5190, member organizations also must comply with all applicable rules governing the withdrawal of quotations in accordance with SEC Regulation M. The Exchange believes that applying Rule 5190 to Limited Underwriting Members would be appropriate given the important role Rule 5190 plays in maintaining the quality of and public confidence in the Exchange's marketplace and the initial public offering (“IPO”) process as well as the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
Rules 8000-8330 and Rules 9000-9870 contain the Exchange's disciplinary rules, which would govern the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against proposed Limited Underwriting Members for violations of the rules set forth in proposed Rule 310(c)(1). The Exchange proposes to specifically exclude Rule 8211 and Rule 9557. Rule 8211 relates to members submission of trade data. Rule 9557 relates to procedures for regulating activities under Rules 4110, which relates to member organizations capital compliance, and Rules 4120 and 4130, which relate to carrying or clearing members. Rule 8211 and Rule 9557 are thus not relevant to underwriting activity.
Proposed Rule 310(c)(1) would provide that these rules would apply to all Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons in the same manner that these rules apply to member organizations and persons associated with a member organization. Persons associated with a Limited Underwriting Member would also have the same duties and obligations under these rules as a Limited Underwriting Member under these rules.
Finally, proposed Rule 310(c)(2) would provide that Limited Underwriting Members must at all times be FINRA members in good standing and that associated persons of Limited Underwriting Members must at all times be properly qualified and registered under FINRA rules.
The proposed list of rules applicable to Limited Underwriting Members is not intended to be comprehensive or foreclose the possibility of modifying the list in the future. The Exchange represents that it will consider whether additional existing rules that are not proposed in the limited ruleset for Limited Underwriting Members or new rules are warranted as the Exchange gains more experience in applying the rules proposed.
Like Nasdaq, the Exchange proposes to apply only those rules it deems appropriate to a firm serving as a principal underwriter, including those rules it deems critical to such firms, in an effort to impose minimal burden on Limited Underwriting Members, while still allowing the Exchange to have regulatory authority over such Members.
• Rules 1P-13P govern trading on the Pillar trading platform, including the listing of exchange traded products. These rules are not relevant to underwriting activity;
• Rules 1-18
• Rules 20-28 are miscellaneous rules that are not relevant to underwriting activity. Specifically, Rule 20 is reserved; Rules 21 and 22 govern Board of Directors disqualification requirements; Rules 23 and 24 concern time zones and trading hours; Rules 25 addresses Exchange liability for legal costs; Rule 26 was rescinded; Rule 27 concerns Exchange regulatory cooperation agreements; and Rule 28 concerns employee fingerprint requirements;
• Rules 35-38 (Access to and Communications with the Floor) govern requirements and limitations for members and member organizations on the Floor, which are not relevant to the activities of Limited Underwriting Members due to their lack of access to trading on the Exchange;
• Rules 45-299C (Dealing and Settlements) relate to trading and settlement issues on the Exchange, which are similarly not relevant to the non-trading activities of Limited Underwriting Members;
• Rules 300-324 (Admission of Members), with the exception of Rule 308 and 309 governing acceptability proceedings and collection of and failure to pay Exchange fees discussed above. Proposed Rule 310 would govern Limited Underwriting Members while the other rules governing trading licenses (Rule 300) and qualification and Floor access rules applicable to members and member organizations engaged in trading on the Exchange would be inapplicable to Limited Underwriting Members and generally duplicative of relevant FINRA membership requirements;
• Rules 325-465 (Operation of Member Organizations) govern capital requirements and the operation of a member organization and its offices and employees, including continuing education requirements for registered persons (Rule 345A), that are not relevant to the activities of Limited Underwriting Members and generally duplicative of relevant FINRA membership requirements.
• Rules 471-474B (Communications with the Public) govern approval and communication of research reports by member organizations. Limited Underwriting Members would be subject to similar rules directly by virtue of their FINRA membership;
• Rules 496-501A govern listing and delisting requirements for listed companies. All of the rules have been removed except Rule 497, which governs additional requirements for listed securities issued by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., or its affiliates and is not relevant to underwriting activity;
• Rules 600A-639 (Arbitration Rules) relate to disputes, claims or controversies between or among member organizations and/or associated persons. The rules only apply to NYSE arbitration cases pending prior to the effective date of the consolidation of the member firm regulation function of NYSE Regulation, Inc. with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. in 2007, and are thus inapplicable to Limited Underwriting Members;
• Rules 1210-1230 (Registration) govern qualification, registration and continuing education requirements applicable to members or member organizations. These rules are based on and are substantially similar to FINRA Rules 1210-1230, and are thus generally duplicative of relevant FINRA membership requirements;
• Rules 1400-1401 (Trading of Debt Securities) set forth trading rules for debt securities on the Exchange, which are not relevant to the activities of Limited Underwriting Members.
Proposed Rule 310 would include two supplementary material.
First, Rule 310, Supplementary Material .01 would provide that, consistent with the definition of “member” in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, a Limited Underwriting Member agrees to be regulated by the Exchange and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange for purposes of interpreting and applying the above rules to Limited Underwriting Members and their associated persons.
Second, proposed Rule 310, Supplementary Material .02 would provide that, for the purposes of this rule, the term “associated person” shall have the same meaning as the terms “person associated with a member” or “associated person of a member” as defined in Article I (rr) of the FINRA ByLaws.
The Exchange would avoid applying any Exchange rules not specified in proposed Rule 310(c)(1). As previously noted, the Exchange does not propose to apply rules that would apply to member organizations, such as registration, qualification, and continuing education requirements, including requirements
In addition, the Exchange would impose a new requirement in its Listed Company Manual based on Nasdaq Rule 5210(l)(ii) in a new Section 108.00 requiring each Company applying for initial listing in connection with a transaction involving an underwriter to have a principal underwriter that is a member organization as defined in Rule 2 of the rules of the Exchange or a Limited Underwriting Member, as defined in Rule 2(k) of the rules of the Exchange. In proposed Section 108.00(i), the Exchange would also specify that “principal underwriter” shall have the same definition used in Rule 405 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933.
The rule would cross reference the definition of “Limited Underwriting Member,” which would be added to Rule 2(k) and would define Limited Underwriting Member to mean a registered broker or dealer that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchange solely for purposes of Rule 310 and the rules enumerated in Rule 310(c)(1).
Finally, the Exchange would establish fees for Limited Underwriting Members pursuant to a separate fee filing. The Exchange proposes that the instant filing would become operative 30 days following the effective day of the fee filing. The Exchange will announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the proposal would create a new category of market participant for registered broker-dealers with a disciplinary history satisfactory to the Exchange that seek to act as a principal underwriter of a transaction in connection with which an issuer seeks to be admitted to listing on the Exchange. Firms approved by the Exchange to operate as Limited Underwriting Members on the Exchange would not have rights to transact on the Exchange. Rather, such firms would submit to limited Exchange jurisdiction for the purpose of acting as an underwriter on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this is reasonable because proposed Limited Underwriting Members would not be admitted to the Exchange for trading or any other purpose than acting as an Initial Listing Principal Underwriter.
As proposed, the Exchange would apply only those rules specified in proposed Rule 310(c)(1) to Limited Underwriting FINRA Members, which would include fees, business conduct standards, supervision, notification requirements for offering participants as well disciplinary rules. The Exchange believes that subjecting the proposed new category of principal underwriters to Exchange jurisdiction for such specified rules supports fair and orderly markets, which protects investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers, consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is intended to apply standards and qualifications to permit certain principal underwriters to access to the Exchange for the sole purpose of acting as a principal underwriter of an underwritten public offering in connection with which a company seeks to list on the Exchange and to apply a limited ruleset consistent with the purpose of a limited underwriting membership that does not confer any access to trading on the Exchange and only permits such member to act as a principal underwriter for a company applying to initially list on the Exchange. As noted above, although the Exchange proposes to subject Limited Underwriting Members to a limited set of rules, being permitted to act as an underwriter on the Exchange under the proposed arrangement and for no other purpose does not confer the same benefits as a standard Exchange membership and does not warrant application of the same ruleset. Applying a limited ruleset to proposed Limited Underwriting Members is therefore justified. All Limited Underwriting Members would be subject to the same specified rules. Likewise, the proposed changes to the Listed Company Manual will apply equally to all similarly situated companies applying for initial listing in connection with a transaction involving an underwriter on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange does not expect that its proposal will have an adverse impact on competition among exchanges for members. The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes, taken together, will strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its role and responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization and deter potential violative conduct. As such, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of State announces the location, dates, times, and agenda for the next meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“the Committee”).
The Committee will meet from May 20-23, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EDT). The public may participate in, or observe, the virtual open session on May 20, 2025, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. (EDT). More information below.
The Committee will meet at 600 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. The public will participate via videoconference.
Andrew Zonderman, Cultural Heritage Center, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs: (202) 718-9481;
The Acting Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs calls a meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) in accordance with the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2601-2613) (“the Act”). A portion of this meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 19 U.S.C. 2605(h).
Register to speak at the open session by sending an email with your name and organizational affiliation, as well as any requests for reasonable accommodation, by May 13, 2025. Those who submit written comments in advance of the meeting are not required to make an oral comment during the open session.
The Committee will review written comments if received by 11:59 p.m. (EDT) on May 13, 2025. Written comments may be submitted in two ways, depending on whether they contain confidential information:
1.
2.
3.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice of action and proposed action, request for comments, and notice of public hearing.
The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that appropriate action in this investigation includes: certain services fees on the maritime transport services of Chinese operators and shipowners; on maritime transport services of operators using Chinese-built vessels to be applicable on a non-discriminatory basis; certain service fees on the maritime transport services of operators of foreign-built vehicle carriers to be applicable on a non-discriminatory basis; and restrictions on certain maritime transport services for U.S. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to be applicable on a non-discriminatory basis. In addition, the U.S. Trade Representative is proposing additional tariffs on certain ship-to-shore cranes on a non-discriminatory basis, and proposing additional tariffs on certain other cargo handling equipment of China. USTR requests written comments regarding the proposed tariff actions set forth in this notice and will convene a public hearing in relation to the proposed tariffs.
Dates applicable to fees on certain maritime transport services are contained in Annexes I, II, and III.
Dates applicable to restrictions on certain maritime transport are contained in Annex IV.
Submit documents in response to the proposed tariff actions in this notice, including written comments, rebuttal comments, and requests to appear through USTR's electronic portal:
For procedural questions concerning comments or participating in the public hearing on the proposed tariff actions, contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725. Direct all other questions regarding this notice to: Megan Grimball and Philip Butler, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee; Thomas Au, Associate General Counsel; or Henry Smith, Anjani Nadadur, or David Salkeld, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395-5725.
On March 12, 2024, petitioners
On April 17, 2024, after consultations with the appropriate advisory committees and the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance.
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, on January 16, 2025, USTR released a public report on the investigation. The “Report on China's Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance” (Report) supports the determination that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and thus is actionable. The Report is available on USTR's website at:
As detailed in the Report, for nearly three decades, China has targeted the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance and has employed increasingly aggressive and specific targets in pursuing dominance. China's dominance severely disadvantages U.S. companies, workers, and the U.S. economy generally, through lessened competition and commercial opportunities and through the creation of economic security risks from dependencies and vulnerabilities.
Top-down industrial planning and targeting is a critical feature of China's state-led, non-market economic system. China organizes the development of its economy at a high level through broad, national-level, five-year economic and social development plans. It then employs industry-specific plans that typically align chronologically with the national five-year plans. These plans often contain detailed quantitative and qualitative targets, including for production, domestic content, and domestic and international market shares, and outline the non-market policies and practices China should use to achieve these targets. China's plans reveal its targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance.
Market share targets necessitate substitution by Chinese companies at the expense of foreign competitors—for Chinese companies to gain market share, they must displace foreign companies in existing markets and take new markets as they develop in the future. China's industrial targets have become more aggressive and sophisticated over the years.
China's targeting of these sectors for dominance has undercut competition and taken market share with dramatic effect: raising China's shipbuilding market share from less than five percent of global tonnage in 1999, to over 50 percent in 2023; increasing China's ownership of the commercial world fleet to over 19 percent as of January 2024; and controlling production of over 70 percent of ship-to-shore cranes, 86 percent of intermodal chassis, 95 percent of shipping containers, and increasing shares of other components and products.
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, as reflected in the Report on the investigation, and taking into account public comments, as well as the advice of the Section 301 Committee and appropriate advisory committees, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and thus is actionable under Sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)).
In particular, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable because it displaces foreign firms, deprives market-oriented businesses and their workers of commercial opportunities, and lessens competition, and creates dependencies on China, increasing risk and reducing supply chain resilience. China's targeting for dominance also is unreasonable because of China's extraordinary control over its economic actors and these sectors.
Furthermore, the U.S. Trade Representative determined that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance burdens or restricts U.S. commerce by undercutting business opportunities for and investments in the U.S. maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors; restricting competition and choice; creating economic security risks from dependence and vulnerabilities in sectors critical to the functioning of the
On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Trade Representative proposed that action was appropriate and to take responsive action in the form of service fees against certain maritime transport services of China. USTR also proposed that certain maritime transport service fees and restrictions would be applicable on a nondiscriminatory basis.
USTR requested public comments with respect to: the level of the burden or restriction on U.S. commerce arising from China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance; the appropriate trade to be covered by responsive actions, including the type and level; and whether the proposed fees or restrictions on services are appropriate, including the type of services to be subject to fees or restrictions, the level of fees or restrictions, the structure of any fees, restrictions, or reimbursement of fees on services. In commenting on proposed actions, USTR requested commenters specifically address whether a proposed action would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of China's acts, policies, and practices.
USTR established an electronic portal to receive public comment on the proposals and held a two-day public hearing on March 24 and 26, 2025.
On April 9, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14269, “Restoring America's Maritime Dominance.” With respect to the actions to be taken in this investigation, if any, Section 5 of the Executive Order directs the U.S. Trade Representative to: (i) coordinate with appropriate agencies to collect additional information, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, in support of administering such actions; and (ii) coordinate with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate steps to enforce any restriction, fee, penalty, or duty imposed pursuant to such actions. Additionally, as part of the actions in this investigation, Executive Order 14269 directs the U.S. Trade Representative to consider proposing: (i) tariffs on ship-to-shore (STS) cranes manufactured, assembled, or made using components of PRC origin, or manufactured anywhere in the world by a company owned, controlled, or substantially influenced by a PRC national; and (ii) tariffs on other cargo handling equipment.
Executive Order 14269 also describes additional policies to broadly address China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance, including the creation of a Maritime Action Plan (Section 3); the engagement of allies and partners to align trade policies, including with respect to this investigation (Section 7); efforts to reduce dependence on adversaries by recommending incentives for shipbuilders in allied nations to undertake capital investment in the United States (Section 8); and the development of a legislative proposal for a maritime security trust fund that considers using revenue, including from this action, to establish a reliable, dedicated funding source for programs under the Maritime Action Plan (Section 9).
Executive Order 14269 is available at the following address:
On January 16, 2025, USTR issued a notice which announced the U.S. Trade Representative's determination that China's acts, policies, and practices under investigation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, and are thus actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act. Section 301(b) of the Trade Act provides that upon determining that the acts, policies, and practices under investigation are actionable and that action is appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative shall take all appropriate and feasible action authorized under Section 301(c) of the Trade Act, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President regarding such action, and all other appropriate and feasible action within the power of the President that the President may direct the U.S. Trade Representative to take under section 301(b) of the Trade Act, to obtain the elimination of those acts, policies, or practices.
Section 301(c)(1)(B) of the Trade Act authorizes, the U.S. Trade Representative to “impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of [the foreign country subject to the investigation] and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, [the foreign country subject to the investigation].” Sections 301(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the Trade Act provide further authority for the U.S. Trade Representative to take any of the actions he is authorized to take under section 301(b) against any good or economic sector, on a non-discriminatory basis or solely against the foreign country concerned, and without regard to whether such goods or economic sector were involved in the act, policy, or practice under investigation.
USTR and the Section 301 Committee have carefully reviewed the public comments and the testimony from the two-day public hearing regarding the proposed actions. USTR has also considered the advice of advisory committees and consulted with the agencies which regulate the services involved. Considering the comments and advice, and pursuant to sections 301(b), 301(c), and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b), 2411(c), and 2414(a)), the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that action is appropriate, and that appropriate and feasible action in this investigation includes the actions as provided for in Annexes I, II, III, and IV to this notice. The actions are summarized below for convenience purposes.
•
•
•
•
Consistent with the President's direction in Executive Order 14269, “Restoring America's Maritime Dominance,” the U.S. Trade Representative is proposing additional duties on STS cranes, in a manner consistent with the description in the Executive Order, and on containers and certain chassis of China, consistent with the Executive Order 14269's direction regarding other cargo handling equipment of China, to include headings and subheadings 8609.00.00, 8716.39.0090, 8716.90.30, and 8716.90.50.
Below USTR responds to comments that raise significant issues. USTR prepared the responses below in light of the ongoing litigation regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to certain Section 301 actions, which the United States disputes on appeal.
The U.S. Trade Representative proposed a service fee on Chinese maritime transport operators at a flat rate of up to $1,000,000 per entrance of any vessel of that operator to a U.S. port, or at a rate of up $1,000 per net ton of the vessel's capacity per entrance of any vessel of that operator to a U.S. port.
USTR received several comments in response to the proposals. Many of the comments agreed with the U.S. Trade Representative's determination that some form of responsive action was required in light of measures taken by China to dominate the maritime, shipbuilding and logistics sector. The comments generally urged revisions to the proposed fee schedule in order to lessen disproportionate economic impact, and also urged delays in the imposition of fees. For example, several comments noted that the proposed fee schedule (particularly as it relates to the amount of the fee, a flat-rate versus tonnage fee, and a fee assessed per rotation or string of U.S. port calls), would disproportionately impact certain U.S. commodity exports, especially those using bulk carriers for international transport, short-sea shipping routes, and imports to certain U.S. territories. These comments asserted that any fee assessed per single port of call would disproportionately impact smaller ports, and thus negatively impact local maritime jobs, as vessel operators may seek to mitigate fee impact by visiting fewer ports or visiting only major U.S. ports. Some comments sought clarity on how a “Chinese operator” and “Chinese-built vessel” would be defined for purposes of the final action.
USTR also received a number of comments asserting that the proposed fee would exert more leverage on China, and thus be more effective at obtaining the elimination of China's practices, if fees were directed at vessel owners, rather than operators. These comments assessed that vessel operators would be more likely to pass along any fee to importers and that, as result, a fee directed at operators would likely be ineffective in changing operator behavior in procuring Chinese vessels for international transport.
Considering the public comments, the U.S. Trade Representative has made certain adjustments to the proposed fee on maritime transport to include any vessel operated by Chinese crew, or any vessel owned by an entity of China, as set forth in Annex I. In response to public comments regarding the amount of the fee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to assess the fee on a net tonnage basis, with the initial fee set at $0 for the first 180 days from the date of determination (that is, until October 14, 2025). This fee will then increase to a rate of $50 per NT and will increase on an annual basis for three years. In consideration of potential impacts to small ports if a fee were to be assessed at each port of call, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to assess the fee upon entry at the first U.S. port or place from a foreign destination per rotation or string of U.S. port calls. The fee will be assessed at the first U.S. port within the customs territory of the United States. The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that any such fee would be charged per rotation or string of U.S. port calls, and no more than five times a year on an individual vessel.
In response to comments regarding the effectiveness of a fee on Chinese operators, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to assess the fee on any Chinese vessel operator and on any
The U.S. Trade Representative proposed a flat fee of up to $1,500,000 per vessel entry of a Chinese-built vessel to a U.S. port. The U.S. Trade Representative also proposed escalating fees per vessel entry to a U.S. port based on the percentage of Chinese-built vessels in the operator's fleet. The U.S. Trade Representative also proposed a flat fee of up to $1,000,000 per vessel entry to a U.S. port when an operator's fleet is comprised of 25 percent or more Chinese-built vessels.
In response to the proposals, several comments expressed concerns that the proposed fees would result in higher prices and shortages for American importers and consumers. Comments also expressed concerns that the proposals would cause U.S. exports, particularly bulk cargo exports, to be more expensive. Some commenters stated that the proposed fees and attendant increased costs of imports and exports would put them out of business. Commenters argue that the fees should be aimed at Chinese state-owned operators, rather than non-Chinese operators. Some comments noted the lack of capacity of U.S. shipbuilders and questioned whether the proposed fees would do anything to address the cost advantage enjoyed by Chinese shipbuilders. Comments also claimed that the proposed fees would likely result in fewer port calls at smaller ports, leading to a loss of jobs and exports at these smaller ports.
A few comments agreed with the proposals, noting that the proposed fees would address trade imbalances, enhance national security, support investment in the American maritime industrial base, and promote higher environmental and labor standards. One commenter suggested that the proposed fees be captured in a U.S. shipbuilding and mariner compensation trust fund to be expended each year for reviving the U.S. merchant marine. Some comments suggested that care should be taken so as to not allow for circumvention of the proposed fees by transshipment of cargo through Canada or Mexico. If the proposed fees were to be imposed, some commenters requested a phased-in approach, a per tonnage or per container fee that is capped, a per-voyage rather than per-entry fee, and that fees only apply to future-built vessels and not existing vessels. Some comments requested an exemption for vessels carrying U.S. agriculture, coal, or other commodity exports; others requested an exemption for “short sea,” Great Lakes, or Caribbean shipping; one commenter requested an exemption for Hong Kong-registered vessels and operators. Some comments suggested alternatives to a fee-based system, such as tax credits for ordering U.S.-built ships or other investments in the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined not to impose any fee based on fleet composition at this time. The U.S. Trade Representative has determined instead to impose a fee on maritime transport using any Chinese-built vessels. This fee is applied on a non-discriminatory basis. This fee will be assessed on a per tonnage or per container fee basis, whichever fee is higher.
In response to comments regarding a phase-in or transition period, the fee on Chinese-built vessels will be set at $0 for the first 180 days from the date of determination (that is, until October 14, 2025), to be increased on an annual basis according to the schedule and provisions set forth in Annex II. In response to comments regarding the potential for disproportionate economic impact on certain U.S. interests or industries, the following vessels as set forth in Annex II will not be subject to the scope of the fee: (1) U.S. vessels enrolled in certain U.S. Maritime Administration programs; (2) vessels arriving empty or in ballast; (3) smaller vessels; (4) vessels engaged in short sea shipping; (5) U.S.-owned companies' vessels; and (6) specialized export vessels. In making this determination, the U.S. Trade Representative balanced the need to impose a service fee to disincentivize the use and purchase of Chinese-built ships, as a counter to China's dominance, with concerns raised in the comments regarding the effect that such a fee would have on shipping costs and the U.S. economy.
The U.S. Trade Representative did not determine to limit the scope of the fees to exclude vessels based on an export commodity basis, in light of the fee in Annex II is not applicable to vessels below certain size thresholds, vessels arriving empty or in ballast, and short sea shipping. In order to incentivize domestic production, which may help create leverage for the elimination of the investigated acts, policies, and practices or otherwise to mitigate the burden or restriction, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined that, upon order and until delivery of a U.S.-built vessel of equal or greater capacity, the fee may be eligible for suspension on an equivalent size Chinese-built vessel, for a period not to exceed three years.
The U.S. Trade Representative proposed an additional fee on vessel operators based on the percentage of vessels ordered from Chinese shipyards, either escalating based on percentage of vessel orders in or expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months, or a flat fee on vessel operators with 25 percent or more vessels ordered by that operator, or expected to be delivered to that operator, are ordered or expected to be delivered by Chinese shipyards over the next 24 months.
Some commenters expressed support for this proposal. Other commenters made recommendations, including phase-in periods, grandfathering of previously ordered ships, reduced fees or imposition of fees per Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEU) or cargo value, and allowing waivers, among others.
A number of commenters expressed concerns about the potential impact on shipping to and from the United States due to insufficient domestic alternatives, including increases in shipping costs for exporters (including farmers and coal companies) and consumers, as well as concerns about port diversion or consolidation. Alternatives suggested by commenters included sliding scale fees, incentives, credits, grants, or regulatory reform to encourage U.S. shipbuilding investment, taxes on Chinese-flagged ships to be added to a commercial shipbuilding revitalization fund, and a fee on inbound containers.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined not to impose a fee based on prospective orders of Chinese vessels at this time. The U.S. Trade Representative currently considers that the initial fees being implemented in this Notice, along with the proposed tariff actions, may provide sufficient leverage to encourage China to
To promote the acquisition and use of U.S.-built ships by operators, the U.S. Trade Representative proposed a service fee remission in the form of a refund on the additional fees charged to an operator providing international maritime transport services in an amount up to $1,000,000, per entry into a U.S. port of a U.S.-built vessel.
A large number of comments, both supporting and opposing the proposed fee remission, highlighted the lack of capacity of U.S. shipbuilders. Several comments opposing the proposal noted that it would take years for operators to take advantage of the refund or that, given the lack of capacity, the proposed remission would be unlikely to provide much benefit. One comment noted that the proposal failed to address underlying capacity constraints.
To address the lack of capacity of U.S. shipbuilders, comments supporting the proposal provided suggestions to broaden the eligibility of the proposed fee remission to more ships. These included allowing fee remission to ships produced in third countries and to ships that are made available to sealift command.
A number of comments provided alternatives to the proposed fee remission. One comment suggested that a better approach might be to phase in the assessed fees. A few comments suggested incentives for U.S. ships in the form of grants and tax credits. Other suggested alternatives included certain exemptions to the fees. Suggested exemptions included industries that rely on international supply chains, ships used for exports of agriculture products, and ships used for regional shipping.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to adjust the proposed service fee remission. The U.S. Trade Representative has determined to allow for suspending the fee on an equivalent size Chinese-built vessel, for a period not to exceed three years, upon order and until delivery of a U.S.-built vessel of equal or greater size within that time period. Additionally, as discussed above, considering the comments regarding the proposed service fee remission, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to adjust the service fees so that they are phased in over time.
To further promote the acquisition of U.S.-built ships, and address capacity constraints, the U.S. Trade Representative has also determined to phase in a service fee on vessel operators of foreign-built vehicle carriers on a non-discriminatory basis. As outlined in Annex III, the fee will be set at zero for the first 180 days, and will apply to vessel operators of all vehicle carriers that are non-U.S. built vessels. This fee may also be eligibility for remission for a particular foreign-built vessel for a period not to exceed three years if the vessel owner orders and takes delivery of a U.S.-built vessel of equivalent or greater car-equivalent unit (CEU) capacity within that time period.
The U.S. Trade Representative proposed a restriction on maritime services with escalating requirements over a seven-year period for U.S. operators to increase the percentage of U.S. products on U.S.-flagged ships and the percentage of U.S. products on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built vessels. The U.S. Trade Representative also proposed that U.S. goods may be approved for export on a non-U.S.-built vessel, provided that 20 percent of what the operator transports by vessel is transported on U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built ships.
In response, several comments expressed concern that the proposals would only punish U.S. exporters. Some asserted that the proposals would lead to a decrease in U.S. exports and would ultimately divert ships from U.S. ports. Several comments noted that the timelines for the proposals are too aggressive and not achievable. Most of these comments noted that there is currently insufficient capacity of U.S. ships and one comment noted a lack of U.S. mariners. A number of comments asserted that, rather than provide an incentive for using more U.S. ships, the proposals would lead to operators consolidating shipments, visiting fewer and larger ports, and causing harm to smaller ports. One comment noted that rather than provide an incentive for using U.S. ships, the proposals would force companies to focus on larger ports. Several comments asserted that the proposals would cause particular harm to certain products, including agriculture products, bulk products, and coal.
Some comments agreed with the proposals, noting that an escalating percentage of U.S. products to be exported every year on U.S. flagged ships would help curb the use of Chinese built ships, drive demand for domestically produced ships, and provide benefits to upstream domestic industries, including steel. A number of comments supported the proposal, but expressed concern regarding the lack of capacity on U.S. ships. One comment asserted that the U.S. would need at least 15 years to build sufficient capacity.
With respect to LNG ships, one comment noted there are no U.S.-built vessels and only one U.S.-flagged LNG vessel. To address the capacity constraints, multiple comments provided suggestions for mitigating the fee, including: a delay in implementation; exemptions for specific products; exemptions for non-Chinese operators with Chinese ships already on order; and an exemption for ships built by U.S. allies. Several comments noted possible harm to regional trade and requested that that the proposals be limited to trans-oceanic vessels. Finally, some comments noted that they needed additional information and clarification as to how the proposals would be implemented and enforced.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative has determined to limit the scope of the proposed restrictions to U.S. LNG exports, with restrictions on maritime transport of LNG to begin on April 17, 2028, and gradually increasing thereafter for a period in total of 22 years.
The U.S. Trade Representative requested comments on other actions to reduce exposure to and risks from China's promotion of the National Transportation and Logistics Public Information Platform (LOGINK) or other similar platforms. In response, some commenters expressed support for U.S. efforts to restrict LOGINK and its access to shipping data or to ban U.S. ports from using LOGINK.
Considering the public comments and the advice of the Section 301 Committee, the U.S. Trade Representative intends to continue to explore responsive actions as to Chinese digital logistics platforms (
A number of commenters addressed additional issues in response to USTR's narrowly scoped request for comments on “other actions” with respect to LOGINK. USTR took note of these comments, including suggestions that the United States reinvest in or incentivize U.S. shipbuilding and commercial fleets, including through fees being directed to a trust fund to support domestic shipyards, skilled workforce training, technology development, the addition of a land border fee and fee on Chinese-built offshore vessels, and expanding access to U.S. cabotage trade for U.S. stakeholders and European tonnage and shipbrokers.
Section 301(b) of the Trade Act gives broad authority to the U.S. Trade Representative to take action to obtain the elimination of an unreasonable acts, policies, and practices of foreign country that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Section 301(b) further provides that actions may be taken that are within the power of the President with respect to trade in any goods or services, or with respect to any other areas of pertinent relations with the foreign country. Section 301(c) further describes specific action the U.S. Trade Representative is authorized to take.
Despite the broad grant of authority in the 301 statute, some comments assert that the proposed actions are
A few comments assert that the proposed actions are inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and the U.S.-China Agreement on Maritime Transport. With respect to WTO rules, some comments argue that the service fees on Chinese operators and owners and operators of Chinese-built ships are a discriminatory importation charge that is inconsistent with the WTO's multilateral dispute resolution mechanism. USTR notes that Section 301(b) of the Trade Act authorizes the actions proposed in the investigation, which are in response to numerous findings of unreasonable acts, policies, and practices of China that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Moreover, as detailed in USTR's Report, the myriad of acts, policies and practices deployed by China in pursuit of its goals for global dominance of the maritime and logistics sectors cannot be appropriately addressed through recourse to WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
In response to comments that the proposed actions violate the U.S.-China Agreement on Maritime Transport,
In response to comments that USTR's proposed service fees imposed on non-Chinese operators are
In response to comments that USTR's proposed restriction to promote the transport of U.S. goods on U.S. ships does not constitute a fee or a duty or a restriction on a service, USTR notes that the proposal to restrict the international maritime transport of certain U.S. goods is, by its very terms, a restriction of a service. USTR does not consider the restriction on services in Annex IV to be taken with respect to any prior service sector authorization because this action creates a new restriction on the provision of maritime transport services.
USTR does not consider that the proposed fees contravene the Export Clause of the U.S. Constitution, nor does USTR consider the fees to be sufficiently closely related to the export process. The proposed fees are fees on maritime transport services payable upon entrance of a covered vessel at arrival at a port in the customs territory of the United States from a foreign destination, rather than on export from a state of the United States.
USTR disagrees with novel arguments that the proposed actions may amount to a regulatory taking without just compensation or that the proposed actions are unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Assuming for the sake of response that a service fee could provide a basis for a constitutional takings claim, the fee structure in the final actions has been recalibrated in response to public comments in order to diminish severe adverse economic impacts on U.S. industries. The fees also reflect an amount that would be sufficiently meaningful to change commercial behavior and potential market responses. Coupled with the limited scope of the fees and extended lead times, USTR finds no basis for an assertion of an unconstitutional takings claim. USTR considers that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment would be inapplicable to USTR's proposed actions as service fees or restrictions are not themselves fines or penalties.
In accordance with the President's direction, the U.S. Trade Representative has considered whether to propose additional duties on certain ship-to-shore cranes and other cargo handling equipment. The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that it is appropriate to do so considering, as discussed in USTR's Report, China's overwhelming production share of ship-to-shore cranes, intermodal chassis, and shipping containers, and China's increasing shares of other components and products.
Specifically, the Report issued by USTR in this investigation highlights the vulnerabilities arising from over-reliance on Chinese production of ship-to-shore cranes and other maritime components and equipment, noting that such over-reliance may create opportunities for China to manipulate the supply of critical components or materials essential to U.S. maritime infrastructure. USTR's report highlights that China's targeting of the maritime sectors for dominance has severely undercut competition, leading to China overwhelming controlling global production of STS cranes, intermodal chassis, and shipping containers, among others. Consistent with the President's direction in Executive Order 14269, the U.S. Trade Representative finds that proposing 301 duties on these products is an additional and appropriate source of leverage to encourage China to eliminate the investigated acts policies and practices.
The U.S. Trade Representative has determined to propose the following:
• Additional duties of up to 100 percent on STS cranes manufactured, assembled, or made using components of Chinese origin, or manufactured anywhere in the world by a company owned, controlled, or substantially influenced by a Chinese national, as described in Annex V, and
• Additional duties of up to 100 percent on certain cargo handling equipment of China, as specified in Annex V to this notice.
In order to give effect to the President's direction, the U.S. Trade Representative proposes that action with the respect to STS cranes be taken on a non-discriminatory basis. For informational purposes, Annex V contains a list of the tariff subheadings and product descriptions covered by the tariff action.
In accordance with Section 307(a)(2)(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), and consistent with specific direction of the President, USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to the proposed tariff actions as provided in Annex V to this notice.
USTR requests comments with respect to the following considerations in relation to proposed tariff actions:
• The specific products to be subject to increased duties, including whether the tariff subheadings and product descriptions listed in the Annex V should be retained or removed, or whether tariff subheadings not currently on the list should be added.
• The level of the increase, if any, in the rate of duty.
• Whether the increased duties should take effect in 180 days, or over a phase-in period of 6 to 24 months.
In commenting on the proposed tariff actions, USTR requests that commenters specifically address whether the action would be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of China's acts, policies, and practices.
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments on the proposed action by May 19, 2025, and post-hearing rebuttal comments seven calendar days after the last day of the public hearing.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 10 a.m. on May 19, 2025 regarding the proposed tariff action. To be assured of consideration, you must submit requests to appear at the hearing by May 8, 2025. The request to appear should include a summary of the testimony, and may be accompanied by a pre-hearing submission.
To participate in the hearing, you must submit a request to appear at the hearing using the appropriate docket on the electronic portal at
You must submit written comments and rebuttal comments using docket number USTR-2025-0008 on the electronic portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. The first screen of each docket allows you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent, and identify the primary point of contact for the submission. Information fields are optional; however, your comment or request may not be considered if insufficient information is provided.
Fields with a gray Business Confidential Information (BCI) notation are for BCI information which will not be made publicly available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the comment, or any portion of it by clicking “Next.” You may upload documents at the end of the form and indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public.
Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.
USTR will post attachments uploaded to the docket for public inspection, except for properly designated BCI. You can view submissions on USTR's electronic portal at
The U.S. Trade representative will continue to monitor the effects of the trade action and the progress made toward resolution of this matter. Additionally, the U.S. Trade Representative will continue to consider the proposed actions and possible actions, including actions to address LOGINK and fees on Chinese-built off-shore vessels. In considering possible modifications, the U.S. Trade Representative will also consider the progress of policies under Executive Order 14269 (Restoring America's Maritime Dominance), including coordination with allies and partners regarding the actions taken in this investigation and efforts to reduce dependencies on adversaries through capital investments in U.S. shipbuilding and the establishment of a reliable funding source for programs under the Maritime Action Plan. If modification to the action may be appropriate, the U.S. Trade Representative will consider the comments received in response to the February 27 notice.
In all cases the formal language in Annexes I, II, III, and IV govern the terms of the respective actions. The fees and requirements of the following Annexes are not cumulative. A vessel, as defined in 19 CFR 4.0(a), will be subject to either: (a) one of the three fees directed under Annex I, II, or III; or (b) a requirement under Annex IV.
The fees and requirements are assessed in the following order:
(1) A vessel that is specially designed for the international maritime transport
(2) A vessel properly identified as a “Vehicle Carrier” on U.S. Customs and Border Protection Form 1300, or its electronic equivalent, will be subject to Annex III.
(3) A vessel that meets the conditions of Annex I,
(4) A vessel may be subject to Annex II when Annex I and Annex III do not apply.
For the purposes of this Annex:
(a) Vessel. The term “vessel” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 4.0(a).
(b) U.S. port. The term “U.S. port” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1).
(c) Vessel operator. The term “vessel operator” means the entity which is identified as the operator of the vessel and whose name would appear on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form 1300) or its electronic equivalent.
(d) Vessel owner. The term “vessel owner” means the entity which is identified as the owner of the vessel and whose name would appear on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (CBP Form 1300) or its electronic equivalent.
(e) Vessel owner of China. A vessel owner of China means any entity:
(1) whose country of citizenship is identified as the People's Republic of China (PRC), Hong Kong, or Macau on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement or its electronic equivalent;
(2) whose headquarters, parent entity's headquarters, or parent entity's principal place of business is the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau;
(3) is owned by, or controlled by, a citizen or citizens of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau;
(4) is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau. An entity is owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau where:
(A) the entity is a national or resident of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau;
(B) the entity is organized under the laws of or has its principal place of business in the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau;
(C) 25 percent or more of the entity's outstanding voting interest, board seats, or equity interest is held directly or indirectly by any combination of the governments of the PRC, Hong Kong, or Macau;
(D) 25 percent or more of the entity's outstanding voting interest, board seats, or equity interest is held directly or indirectly by any combination of the persons who fall within subparagraph (e)(4)(A)-(C) of this Annex;
(5) is owned by, or controlled by, an entity listed as a Chinese Military Company pursuant to Section 1260H of the William M. (“Mac”) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283); or
(6) is an ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(7), that is, or whose operating assets are, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by the government of the PRC or any of its political subdivisions, with ownership or control by a government being deemed to exist for a carrier if:
(A) a majority of the interest in the carrier is owned or controlled in any manner by the government of the PRC, an agency of the government of the PRC, or a public or private person controlled by the government of the PRC; or
(B) the government of the PRC or any of its political subdivisions has the right to appoint or disapprove the appointment of a majority of the directors, the chief operating officer, or the chief executive officer of the carrier.
(f) Vessel operator of China. A vessel operator of China means any entity that is a vessel operator that meets one or more of the conditions of subparagraphs (e)(1)-(6) of this Annex.
(g)
The fee will be charged up to five times per year, per vessel.
(h)
(i)
For the purposes of this Annex:
(a) Vessel. The term “vessel” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 4.0(a).
(b) Entry of a vessel. The phrase “entry of a vessel” has the meaning provided in 19 CFR 4.3.
(c) U.S. port. The term “U.S. port” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1).
(d) Vessel operator. The term “vessel operator” means the entity which is identified as the operator of the vessel and whose name would appear on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form 1300) or its electronic equivalent.
(e) Chinese-built vessel. A Chinese-built vessel is a vessel that was built in the People's Republic of China, consistent with the definition of place of build in CBP and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations and would be so identified on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (CBP Form 1300) or its electronic equivalent.
(f) Container. The term “container” means a container as defined in 19 CFR 10.41a, which references the definitions used in the
(a)
(1)
or:
(2)
The fee will be charged up to five times per year, per vessel.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) the vessel is built in the United States;
(2) the vessel is documented under the laws of the United States;
(3) all major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel are manufactured (including all manufacturing processes from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings for iron or steel products) in the United States; and
(4) the components of the vessel listed in paragraph (f) of this section are manufactured in the United States.
(f)
(1) Air circuit breakers.
(2) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.
(3) Powered and non-powered valves in Federal Supply Classes 4810 and 4820 used in piping.
(4) Machine tools in the Federal Supply Classes for metal-working machinery numbered 3405, 3408, 3410 through 3419, 3426, 3433, 3438, 3441 through 3443, 3445, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3460, and 3461.
(5) Auxiliary equipment for shipboard services, including pumps.
(6) Propulsion equipment, including engines, propulsion motors, reduction gears, and propellers.
(7) Shipboard cranes.
(8) Spreaders for shipboard cranes.
(9) Rotating electrical equipment, including electrical alternators and motors.
(10) Compressors, pumps, and heat exchangers used in managing and re-liquefying boil-off gas from liquefied natural gas.
The fees imposed in this Annex do not apply to U.S. government cargo.
The fees imposed in this Annex do not apply to the following Chinese-built vessels:
(i) U.S.-owned or U.S.-flagged vessels enrolled in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement, the Maritime Security Program, the Tanker Security Program, or the Cable Security Program;
(ii) vessels arriving empty or in ballast;
(iii) vessels with a capacity of equal to or less than: 4,000 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units, 55,000 deadweight tons, or an individual bulk capacity of 80,000 deadweight tons;
(iv) vessels entering a U.S. port in the continental United States from a voyage of less than 2,000 nautical miles from a foreign port or point;
(v) U.S.-owned vessels, where the U.S. entity owning the vessel is controlled by U.S. persons and is at least 75 percent beneficially owned by U.S. persons;
(vi) specialized or special purpose-built vessels for the transport of chemical substances in bulk liquid forms; and
(vii) vessels principally identified as “Lakers Vessels” on CBP Form 1300, or its electronic equivalent.
For the purposes of this Annex:
(a) Vessel. The term “vessel” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 4.0(a).
(b) U.S. port. The term “U.S. port” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1).
(c) Vessel operator. The term “vessel operator” means the entity which is identified as the operator of the vessel and whose name would appear on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form 1300) or its electronic equivalent.
(d) Vehicle carrier. A vessel principally identified as a “Vehicle Carrier” on CBP Form 1300, or its electronic equivalent. For information only, a vessel is normally principally identified as a vehicle carrier when the vessel is designed for wheeled or tracked cargo that can load itself on-board. Cargo generally drives onto the vessel through decks via ramps, rather than being lifted through hatches.
(e) Non-U.S. built vessel. The term “non-U.S. built vessel” means any vessel that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)
(1) the vessel is built in the United States;
(2) the vessel is documented under the laws of the United States;
(3) all major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel are manufactured (including all manufacturing processes from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings for iron or steel products) in the United States; and
(4) the components of the vessel listed in paragraph (g) of this section are manufactured in the United States.
(g)
(1) Air circuit breakers.
(2) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.
(3) Powered and non-powered valves in Federal Supply Classes 4810 and 4820 used in piping.
(4) Machine tools in the Federal Supply Classes for metal-working machinery numbered 3405, 3408, 3410 through 3419, 3426, 3433, 3438, 3441 through 3443, 3445, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3460, and 3461.
(5) Auxiliary equipment for shipboard services, including pumps.
(6) Propulsion equipment, including engines, propulsion motors, reduction gears, and propellers.
(7) Shipboard cranes.
(8) Spreaders for shipboard cranes.
(9) Rotating electrical equipment, including electrical alternators and motors.
(10) Compressors, pumps, and heat exchangers used in managing and re-liquefying boil-off gas from liquefied natural gas.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
For the purposes of this Annex:
(a) Vessel. The term “vessel” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 4.0(a).
(b) Exportation. The term “exportation” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 101.1.
(c) U.S. port. The term “U.S. port” has the meaning defined in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1).
(d) Vessel operator. The term “vessel operator” means the entity which is identified as the operator of the vessel and whose name appears on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Form 1300).
(e) Vessel owner. The term “vessel owner” means the entity which is identified as the owner of the vessel and whose name appears on the Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement (CBP Form 1300).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, exports of liquified natural gas (LNG) shall be transported on vessels that receive a license consistent with this Annex and meet
(f)
(1) From April 17, 2025, to April 16, 2026: no restrictions.
(2) From April 17, 2026, to April 16, 2027: no restrictions.
(3) From April 17, 2027, to April 16, 2028: no restrictions.
(4) From April 17, 2028, to April 16, 2029: one percent on U.S.-flagged and U.S.-operated vessels.
For every subsequent year, the following percentages are exported by U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and U.S.-operated vessels:
(5) From April 17, 2029, to April 16, 2030: one percent.
(6) From April 17, 2030, to April 16, 2031: one percent.
(7) From April 17, 2031, to April 16, 2032: two percent.
(8) From April 17, 2032, to April 16, 2033: three percent.
(9) From April 17, 2033, to April 16, 2034: three percent.
(10) From April 17, 2034, to April 16, 2035: four percent.
(11) From April 17, 2035, to April 16, 2036: four percent.
(12) From April 17, 2036, to April 16, 2037: six percent.
(13) From April 17, 2037, to April 16, 2038: six percent.
(14) From April 17, 2038, to April 16, 2039: seven percent.
(15) From April 17, 2039, to April 16, 2040: seven percent.
(16) From April 17, 2040, to April 16, 2041: seven percent.
(17) From April 17, 2041, to April 16, 2042: nine percent.
(18) From April 17, 2042, to April 16, 2043: nine percent.
(19) From April 17, 2043, to April 16, 2044: eleven percent.
(20) From April 17, 2044, to April 16, 2045: eleven percent.
(21) From April 17, 2045, to April 16, 2046: thirteen percent.
(22) From April 17, 2046, to April 16, 2047: thirteen percent.
(23) From April 17, 2047: fifteen percent.
The percentage of LNG in paragraphs (f)(1)-(23) of this Annex is determined based on the prior calendar year's total LNG, expressed in cubic feet, that was exported by maritime transport as reported by the U.S. Department of Energy. The percentage value, expressed in cubic feet, will be controlling until such annual calculation is reported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
(g)
(1) with respect to the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this Annex:
(A) if:
(i) the vessel is documented under the laws of the United States; and
(ii) with respect to any retrofit work necessary for the vessel to export natural gas:
(aa) such work is done in a shipyard in the United States; and
(bb) any component of the vessel listed in section (c) of this Annex that is installed during the course of such work is manufactured in the United States; or
(B) if:
(i) the vessel is built in the United States;
(ii) the vessel is documented under the laws of the United States;
(iii) all major components of the hull or superstructure of the vessel are manufactured (including all manufacturing processes from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings for iron or steel products) in the United States; and
(iv) the components of the vessel listed in section (h) of this Annex are manufactured in the United States; and
(2) with respect to the requirements of paragraph (f)(5) through (f)(22) of this Annex, if the vessel meets the requirements of subparagraph (g)(1)(B) of this Annex.
(h)
(1) Air circuit breakers.
(2) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.
(3) Powered and non-powered valves in Federal Supply Classes 4810 and 4820 used in piping.
(4) Machine tools in the Federal Supply Classes for metal-working machinery numbered 3405, 3408, 3410 through 3419, 3426, 3433, 3438, 3441 through 3443, 3445, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3460, and 3461.
(5) Auxiliary equipment for shipboard services, including pumps.
(6) Propulsion equipment, including engines, propulsion motors, reduction gears, and propellers.
(7) Shipboard cranes.
(8) Spreaders for shipboard cranes.
(9) Rotating electrical equipment, including electrical alternators and motors.
(10) Compressors, pumps, and heat exchangers used in managing and re-liquefying boil-off gas from liquefied natural gas.
(i)
(j)
(k)
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposes to assess additional duties on the following products of China at the proposed levels:
USTR proposes to assess these additional duties in addition to duties assessed under other authorities, including related to national security, national emergency, Column 1 of the HTSUS, or anti-dumping or countervailing duties (AD/CVD).
I. USTR proposes to apply duties to STS cranes that satisfy the following conditions:
(1) That are products of China; or
(2) Where one or more of the following components, assembly, or sub-assembly thereof, in the ship-to-shore crane are products of China:
a. the main boom,
b. the trolley,
c. the spreader,
d. the cabin,
e. the legs,
f. the cable reel,
g. the power supply,
h. the bogie set and wheels, and
i. any information technology equipment; or,
(3) Where an importer cannot attest that the subject ship-to-shore crane was not manufactured by a company owned or controlled by a Chinese person, then the
a. The ship-to-shore crane(s) that was/were entered into the customs territory of the United States at entry were not manufactured, assembled, or made using parts or components from China;
b. The ship-to-shore crane(s) were not manufactured by a company or other entity that is owned or controlled by a Chinese person or legal entity, or subject to the effective control of a Chinese person or legal entity;
c. No component or assembly of the ship-to-shore crane(s) transited through, or was stored in, any territory of the People's Republic of China, including any free trade zone; and
d. No component, sub-assembly, or assembly of the ship to shore crane(s) will be installed by an employee or contractor of a company or other entity that is owned or controlled by a Chinese person or legal entity, or subject to the effective control of a Chinese person or legal entity.
II. For these purposes of this Annex, the following meanings apply:
A “company or other entity that is owned or controlled by a Chinese person” means:
(1) an entity or instrument of the People's Republic of China, (including the Government of the People's Republic of China);
(2) A natural person who is a citizen of the People's Republic of China;
(3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in the People's Republic of China;
(4) An entity organized under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction that is subject to the ownership, control, or direction of another entity that qualifies under subparagraphs II.(1)-(3) of this section. An entity is “subject to the ownership, control, or direction of” another entity if:
(A) 25 percent or more of the entity's board seats, voting rights, or equity interest are cumulatively held by that other entity, whether directly or indirectly via one or more intermediate entities; or
(B) the entity has entered into a licensing arrangement or other contract with another entity (a contractor) that entitles that other entity to exercise effective control over the manufacturing or assembly (collectively, “production”) of a ship-to-shore crane, its components, or other materials that would be attributed to the entity.
“Government of the People's Republic of China” means:
(a) A national or subnational government of the People's Republic of China;
(b) An agency or instrumentality of a national or subnational government of the People's Republic of China;
(c) A dominant or ruling political party (
(d) A current or former senior foreign political figure of the People's Republic of China.
“Senior foreign political figure” means
(a) a senior official, either in the executive, legislative, administrative, military, or judicial branches of the People's Republic of China (whether elected or not),
(b) a senior official of a dominant or ruling foreign political party (
(c) an immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, child, or a spouse's parent and sibling) of any individual described in (a) or (b) of this definition.
In order to be considered “senior,” an official should be or have been in a position of substantial authority over policy, operations, or the use of government-owned resources.
“Indirect control.” For purposes of determining whether an entity indirectly holds board seats, voting rights, or equity interest in a tiered ownership structure:
(a) If a “parent” entity that qualifies under subparagraphs II.(1)-(3) of this section directly holds 50 percent or more of a “subsidiary” entity's board seats, voting rights, or equity interest, then the parent and subsidiary are treated as equivalent in the evaluation of control, as if the subsidiary were an extension of the parent. As such, any holdings of the subsidiary are fully attributed to the parent.
(b) If a “parent” entity that qualifies under subparagraphs II.(1)-(3) of this section directly holds less than 50 percent of a “subsidiary” entity's board seats, voting rights, or equity interest, then indirect ownership is attributed proportionately.
“Effective control.” For purposes of determining whether an entity has effective control, an entity that qualifies under subparagraphs II.(1)-(3) of this section that has a contractual relationship to determine the quantity or timing of production; to determine which entities may purchase or use the output of production; to restrict access to the site of production to the contractor's own personnel; or the exclusive right to maintain, repair, or operate equipment that is critical to production, is deemed to have effective control over an entity.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipage and subsequent maintenance post-installation recordkeeping. The information to be collected will be used to and/or is necessary for continued aircraft certification and recordkeeping.
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Jamal A. Wilson by email at:
On May 28, 2010, the FAA published the final rule entitled “Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Performance Requirements to Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service”.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0020 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0020 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0016 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0016 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0018 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0018 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0033 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0033 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0012 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0012 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0043 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0043 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0046 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0046 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0038 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0038 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0021 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0021 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0041 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0041 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0027 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0027 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0048 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0048 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0036 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0036 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0028 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0028 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0035 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0035 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0042 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0042 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0030 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0030 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0015 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0015 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0034 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0034 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0031 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0031 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0032 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0032 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0053 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0053 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0014 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0014 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0037 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0037 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0054 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0054 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0029 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0029 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0047 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0047 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0056 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0056 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0013 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0013 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0045 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0045 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0039 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0039 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0024 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0024 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0051 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0051 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0023 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0023 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0007 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0007 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0025 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0025 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0026 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0026 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0057 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0057 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0049 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0049 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0009 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0009 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0050 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0050 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0040 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0040 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0052 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0052 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0011 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0011 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0019 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0019 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0010 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-0010 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
(Authority: 49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 12121)
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0044 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0044 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to make determinations regarding the coastwise use of foreign built; certain U.S. built; and U.S. and foreign rebuilt vessels that solely carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. MARAD has received such a determination request and is publishing this notice to solicit comments to assist with determining whether the proposed use of the vessel set forth in the request would have an adverse effect on U.S. vessel builders or U.S. coastwise trade businesses that use U.S.-built vessels in those businesses. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a description of the proposed service, is in the
Submit comments on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-0008 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
Patricia Hagerty, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 2, MAR-620, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5400. Email:
Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12121(b), the U.S. Coast Guard may issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise trade endorsement for eligible, small passenger vessels authorized to carry no more than 12 passengers for hire if the Maritime Administration (MARAD), after notice and an opportunity for public comment, determines the use of the small passenger vessel in the coastwise trade will not adversely affect United States vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person that employs vessels built in the United States in that business.
MARAD has received an eligibility determination request. Further details about the requester's vessel and its proposed operations may be found in the determination request posted in the DOT docket as MARAD-2025-0008 at
Please submit comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
The docket online is located at
Yes. Your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
You may request that MARAD treat your comments as commercially confidential by submitting them to
If MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, FinCEN invites comments on the proposed renewal, without change, of certain existing information collection requirements found in Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulations applicable to casinos and card clubs. Under these regulations, among other requirements, casinos and card clubs (collectively, casinos) must secure and maintain—with respect to each deposit, account, or line of credit—a record of the name, permanent address, and social security number of the person involved at the time the funds are deposited, the account is opened, or credit is extended. This request for comments is made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before June 23, 2025.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only. Comments will be reviewed consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and applicable OMB regulations and guidance. All comments submitted in response to this notice will become a matter of public record. Therefore, you should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
FinCEN's Regulatory Support Section by submitting an inquiry at
The legislative framework generally referred to as the BSA consists of the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act),
The BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to,
Pursuant to 31 CFR 1021.410(a), with respect to each deposit of funds, account opened, or line of credit extended, a casino is required to secure and maintain a record of the name, permanent address (address), and social security number (SSN) of the person involved at the time the funds are deposited, the account is opened, or credit is extended.
Pursuant to 31 CFR 1021.410(b), casinos
Pursuant to 31 CFR 1021.410(c), casinos that input, store, or retain, in whole or in part, for any period of time, any record required to be maintained by 31 CFR 1010.410 or 31 CFR 1021.410 on computer disk, tape, or other machine-readable media must retain those
The distribution of financial institutions, by type, covered by this notice is reflected in table 1 below:
Each casino must secure and maintain a record of the name, address, and SSN of each person who deposits funds, opens an account, or obtains a line of credit with the casino. Each casino must verify and document verification of this information. If a casino is unable to obtain SSNs connected to any of these transactions after making a reasonable effort to do so, the casino must maintain a list of the names and addresses of persons from whom the casino was unable to obtain SSNs, to be made available to the Secretary upon request. FinCEN is assigning an expected burden of one business day, or eight hours, on average, per casino, associated with creating and maintaining such lists, and a recordkeeping burden of two minutes per transaction associated with securing and maintaining the required personally identifying information connected with fund deposits, account openings, and extensions of credit less than or equal to $10,000.
FinCEN's estimate of incremental burden per element of 31 CFR 1021.410(b) is discussed below.
However, FinCEN is mindful that in some cases, such records, though not prepared primarily for FinCEN purposes, may need to be preserved or maintained for longer periods of time to satisfy FinCEN recordkeeping obligations than they would be for the original purposes for which they were created. Thus, it is possible that certain technology costs may accrue related to the secure storage of data and information for the incremental period of time unique to FinCEN requirements. FinCEN is therefore soliciting comments on the appropriateness of assigning a technology cost to these requirements and invites the public to provide data related to the incremental annual costs incurred by casinos associated with this retention of records.
Pursuant to 31 CFR 1021.410(c)(1) and (2), casinos must retain records required to be maintained under 31 CFR 1010.410 and 31 CFR 1021.410 on computer disk, tape, or other machine-readable media in the same format as originally input, stored, or maintained for five years.
In light of technological advancements, generally, since FinCEN originally promulgated these requirements, this estimate is being revisited as the use of technology and electronic media for recordkeeping has become ubiquitous. In its latest PRA renewal of OMB control number 1506-0051, FinCEN recently solicited comment on its intent to reduce the previously assigned burden of compliance with 31 CFR 1021.210(b)(vi).
However, FinCEN is mindful that in some cases, it is possible that certain technology costs may accrue related to the secure storage of data and information that are unrelated to the employment of human labor. FinCEN is therefore soliciting comments on the appropriateness of assigning a technology cost to the recordkeeping requirements of 31 CFR 1021.410(c)(1) and (2), and invites the public to provide data related to the incremental annual costs incurred by casinos associated with this retention of records.
FinCEN's estimate of the total annual PRA burden, therefore, is 118,863 hours, as detailed in table 2 below:
To estimate the costs associated with the annual PRA burden hours, FinCEN is utilizing the fully loaded composite hourly wage rate of $120.07, or rounded to the nearest dollar, $120.00.
Under the PRA, FinCEN as a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Records required to be retained under the BSA must be retained for five years.
(1) FinCEN estimates rely on certain interpretations and assumptions about how the incremental burden estimates for compliance obligations with casino recordkeeping requirements associated with OMB control number 1506-0054 are contextualized within the framework of a casino's other business activities, compliance obligations (for
(2) FinCEN recognizes that, in general, the population of covered casinos and card clubs is highly heterogeneous and that an estimated average therefore may not represent the actual recordkeeping costs incurred by any one specific casino or card club. To what extent are the costs associated with a casino's recordkeeping requirements fixed versus variable? Does this differ for casinos and card clubs? Does the incremental burden of FinCEN requirements vary substantially by state or by other regulating bodies?
(3) To more appropriately tailor its burden estimates to the actual business practices and accompanying costs of specific types or size cohorts of casinos or card clubs, FinCEN is requesting data, studies, and qualitative information (including anecdotal evidence) that would facilitate estimates that are better tailored to the elements of burden that vary by establishment size or other identifiable attributes.
(4) Certain elements of the recordkeeping burden assigned to 31 CFR 1021.410 are estimated as a function of time spent by casino staff on recordkeeping activities and are estimated independently of the differences in volume of transactions occurring at casinos or card clubs. This is because FinCEN anticipates the primary incremental burden for some of these elements to be attributable to collating and reviewing records that are already maintained for other business purposes. To what extent are these estimated burdens consistent with the work performed as part of a casino's compliance with FinCEN requirements? To what extent is the time burden of compliance with FinCEN recordkeeping requirements distinguishable from other business activities?
(5) Per casino, how many persons deposit funds, open an account, or obtain a line of credit with a casino on an annual basis? How substantial are differences in this number when considering the variation in casinos by size, geographic location, or types of games, gambling, or betting offered?
(6) How often, or in what proportion of covered transactions, does a casino receive funds for credit to or deposit into a person's account from a person other than the named person on the account?
(7) Are there incremental technology costs that should be considered as part of the compliance burden with 31 CFR 1021.410(b)(2) and (b)(3)? Does any portion of these costs vary by transaction volume?
(8) Are there incremental technology costs that should be considered as part of the compliance burden with 31 CFR 1021.410(b)(6)-(8)? Does any portion of these costs vary by transaction volume?
(9) FinCEN is requesting information that would inform updates to its estimate of the recordkeeping burden associated with 31 CFR 1021.410(b)(11). To what extent do records continue to be generated, maintained, and preserved on paper? Are there exemplary counterexamples of recordkeeping activities that have not already been converted to electronic processes and formats? Given any changes in recordkeeping technology, are there any remaining instances where FinCEN's historical burden estimate of five minutes per record is still more applicable?
(10) Are there incremental technology costs that should be considered as part of the compliance burden with 31 CFR 1021.410(c)(1) and (2)? Does any portion of these costs vary by transaction volume?
(11) How often, and in what ways, are third party service providers involved in the reporting and recordkeeping activities covered by this control number? What are the costs associated with those products or services? Are these distinct from, or included in, products or services that facilitate casino and card club compliance with other AML/CFT program requirements? If so, please describe.
(12) Do casinos conduct annual compliance training specifically related to these requirements either modularly or as part of the annual training requirements under their AML/CFT programs? If so, please describe the time allotted to such training specific to these recordkeeping requirements, the number or proportion of staff trained, and the primary job titles or descriptions of staff that are trained.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule to increase career employee accountability. Agency supervisors report great difficulty removing employees for poor performance or misconduct. The proposed rule lets policy-influencing positions be moved into Schedule Policy/Career. These positions will remain career jobs filled on a nonpartisan basis. Yet they will be at-will positions excepted from adverse action procedures or appeals. This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or undermine the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this proposed rulemaking, by the following method:
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. Please arrange and identify your comments on the regulatory text by subpart and section number; if your comments relate to the supplementary information, please refer to the heading and page number. All comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. To ensure that your comments will be considered, you must submit them within the specified open comment period. Before finalizing this rule, OPM will consider all comments within the scope of the regulations received on or before the closing date for comments. OPM may make changes to the final rule after considering the comments received.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
Noah Peters, Senior Advisor to the Director, by email at
OPM proposes this rule to strengthen employee accountability and the democratic responsiveness of American government, while addressing longstanding performance management challenges in the Federal workforce. Chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code (chapter 75) requires most agencies
As described below, decades of experience have shown that chapter 43 and 75 procedures make it very difficult for agencies to hold employees accountable for their performance or conduct. The processes are time-consuming and difficult, and removals are not infrequently subject to a protracted appeal process with an uncertain outcome. Surveys show few agency supervisors believe they could dismiss subordinates for serious misconduct or unacceptable performance. This dynamic undermines Federal merit system principles, which call for employees to maintain high standards of conduct and for agencies to separate employees who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
The adverse action procedures and appeals that make it difficult for agency leadership to hold employees accountable also empower career employees to insert partisan or personal preferences into their official duties. While most Federal employees nonetheless faithfully perform their jobs, some do not. As discussed in greater detail later in this proposed rulemaking, it is well documented that many career federal employees use their positions to advance their personal political or policy preferences instead of implementing the elected President's agenda. Such behavior undermines democracy, as it enables government power to be wielded without accountability to the voters or their elected representatives.
On October 21, 2020, President Donald J. Trump addressed these challenges with Executive Order 13957, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service.”
Executive Order 13957 recognized the value of a nonpartisan merit service that develops and maintains institutional knowledge and experience. It strengthened the merit service by giving agencies the tools necessary to hold policy-influencing employees accountable when they fail to uphold high standards of conduct and performance.
On January 22, 2021, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 14003, which abolished Schedule F before any positions were transferred into it.
On the first day of his second term President Trump signed Executive Order 14171 on “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions within the Federal Workforce.”
The OPM Director is generally charged with executing, administering, and enforcing the civil service rules and regulations of the President and the laws governing the civil service. Accordingly, OPM proposes this rule to strengthen employee accountability and implement Executive Order 14171. OPM proposes amending its regulations in 5 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, as follows:
1. Amending 5 CFR part 213 (Excepted Service) to include Schedule Policy/Career as an excepted service schedule for policy-influencing career positions, while clarifying that Schedule C appointments are exclusively for noncareer (
2. Amending 5 CFR part 212 (Competitive Service and Competitive Status) to provide that employees with competitive status whose positions are subsequently listed in the excepted service or who are involuntarily transferred into an excepted service position retain competitive status but do not remain in the competitive service while in the excepted position.
3. Amending 5 CFR part 752 (Adverse Actions) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule and provide that individuals whose positions are reclassified into or who are otherwise transferred into Schedule Policy/Career are not covered by chapter 75 procedural requirements or adverse actions appeals. Additionally, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 752 to remove language pertaining to 10 U.S.C. 1599e, which provided for a 2-year probationary period in the Department of Defense. This language has become obsolete as section 1599e was repealed, effective December 31, 2022, by Public Law 117-81, Sec. 1106(a)(1). The proposed rule further amends 5 CFR part 432 (Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule and to exclude all policy-influencing positions in the excepted service from chapter 43 procedural requirements for performance-based removals.
4. Amending 5 CFR part 210 (Basic Concepts and Definitions (General)) to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule stating that policy-influencing positions are exclusively associated with noncareer political appointments. The proposed rule also amends 5 CFR 213.3301 and 451.302 to conform to the rescission of these definitions.
5. Amending 5 CFR part 302 to remove the amendments made by the April 2024 final rule imposing procedural requirements on movements of positions or employees into policy-influencing excepted service positions (including subsequent MSPB appeals). The proposed regulations also provide that moving or transferring positions into Schedule Policy/Career will not change how appointments to those positions are made. Positions moved from the competitive service will be filled using competitive hiring procedures and employees so appointed may acquire competitive status. Positions moved from the excepted service will continue to be filled using the procedures that applied to their prior excepted service schedule.
As further detailed below, this rulemaking will promote Federal employee accountability and strengthen American democracy while addressing performance management challenges and issues with misconduct within the Federal workforce. It will give agencies the practical ability to separate employees who insert partisanship into their official duties, engage in corruption, or otherwise fail to uphold merit principles. OPM may set forth policies, procedures, standards, and supplementary guidance for the implementation of any final rule.
Beginning with the Administration of George Washington, the appointment—subject to the advice and consent of the Senate where appropriate—and removal of federal officers occurred at the President's discretion by virtue of Article II of the Constitution. Washington appointed Federalists friendly to the new form of government. Subsequent presidents made appointments and removals to advance their agendas.
However, over the course of the Nineteenth Century, presidents began to lose control of the appointment and removal process due to the rise of the patronage system. By the 1880s appointments to positions in the executive branch were predominantly made based on political connections, typically as a reward for loyal supporters of the party in power. Members of Congress and local party machines would use their influence with the President to get their preferred candidate's Federal appointments. The patronage system began showing strain as the Federal Government expanded rapidly after the Civil War. The Federal civilian workforce nearly doubled in size between 1871 and 1881, from 51,000 to 100,000 employees.
These time demands also meant that patronage appointees became subject to little scrutiny once in office. They often provided poor services that frustrated the President, members of Congress, and the voting public. For example, in the increasingly commercialized U.S. economy of the late 19th Century, businesses needed a well-functioning postal system for shipments and customhouses for imports. They saw how the spoils system often prevented the Government from providing these services reliably; perhaps unsurprisingly a majority of civil service reform association members came from business organizations.
This dynamic led Congress to pass, and President Chester A. Arthur to sign, the Pendleton Act of 1883.
When the Pendleton Act became law, President Arthur placed approximately one-tenth of the Federal workforce into the classified service, including half of positions in the postal service and three-quarters of positions in customhouses.
Though the Pendleton Act extensively regulated the process of filling classified positions, employees in the new civil service remained at-will. While the law prohibited executive branch officials from dismissing classified employees because they declined to render political services, they otherwise served at the pleasure of the President.
The reformers who created the Pendleton Act made a conscious decision to keep the civil service at-will. They wanted to create a merit system that would provide high-quality services; they feared that cumbersome removal protections would entrench poor performers. Civil service reformers saw little risk of patronage-based dismissals as long as civil service hiring forbid rewarding campaign supporters with new appointments.
[I]t is better to take the risk of occasional injustice from passion and prejudice, which no law or regulation can control, than to seal up incompetency, negligence, insubordination, insolence, and every other mischief in the service, by requiring a virtual trial at law before an unfit or incapable clerk can be removed.
In other words, “if the front door [is] properly tended, the back door [will] take care of itself.”
The CSC requested an Executive Order requiring officials to formally memorialize the reasons for dismissing civil service employees. The CSC believed this would further discourage covert patronage-based removals. President William McKinley subsequently issued Executive Order 101 on July 27, 1897. This order provided that “No removal shall be made from any position subject to competitive examination except for just cause and upon written charges filed with the head of the Department, or other appointing officer, and of which the accused shall have full notice and an opportunity to make defense.”
President William Howard Taft issued Executive Order 1471 in February 1912 reaffirming and restating the prior McKinley and Roosevelt orders. Congress subsequently codified Executive Order 1471 as the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912.
The rules are not framed on a theory of life tenure, fixed permanence, nor vested right in office. It is recognized that subordination and discipline are essential, and that therefore dismissal for just cause shall be not unduly hampered. The rules have at all times left the power of removal as free as possible, providing restraints only to ensure its proper exercise . . . Appointing officers, therefore, are entirely free to make removals for any reasons relating to the interests of good administration, and they are made the final judges of the sufficiency of the reasons. No examination of witnesses or any trial or hearing is required . . . The rule is merely intended to prevent removals upon secret charges and to stop political pressure for removals . . . . No tenure of office is created
The Lloyd-La Follette Act and its predecessor executive orders did not give classified civil service employees tenure. They instead imposed procedural requirements to prevent merely political or religiously-motivated removals. Agencies remained the sole judge of employee conduct and performance.
For the first six decades of the merit service employees could not appeal removals. That only began to change during the Second World War. The Veterans Preference Act (VPA) of 1944 gave veterans significant hiring preferences for Federal jobs.
Until the 1950s, courts would entertain procedural challenges to civil service removals, overturning them where agencies did not follow Lloyd-La Follette procedures. But courts generally avoided examining the substance of removal actions.
Analyzing the text of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, the D.C. Circuit agreed. The law provided that “[n]o person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed or suspended without pay therefrom except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of such service and for reasons given in writing.”
Notably,
In the 1950s the courts began to permit limited judicial examination of the substance of removals. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited the government from dismissing employees for exercising constitutionally protected rights when those activities were unrelated to their job duties.
Consequently, until the 1960s agencies had to follow statutory procedures to dismiss employees, but they could broadly remove employees for any work-related grounds. These grounds included loss of confidence in an employee in a policy-making position. The procedural requirements—notice and an opportunity to respond, followed by a written explanation of the reason for removal—were also modest. For the general Federal workforce, agencies were also the final judge of whether cause existed for dismissal. The Lloyd-La Follette Act was neither interpreted nor applied to give employees a right to their jobs. Courts would rarely evaluate the substance of adverse actions, except if they occurred in response to employees exercising their constitutional rights.
This changed in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1962 President Kennedy's Executive Order 10987 required agencies to create internal procedures for non-veterans to appeal adverse actions.
Congress legislated against this backdrop when it passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA).
The CSRA maintained prohibitions on patronage and restricted adverse actions in some respects. For example, the CSRA gave non-preference eligible employees in the competitive service the same right to appeal demotions that preference eligible employees possessed.
In other ways, the CSRA made taking adverse actions easier. It created chapter 43, intended to be a faster process for removing poor performers.
The CSRA originally excluded from chapter 75 adverse action procedures excepted service employees who were not preference eligibles. Chapter 75 also excluded any excepted service employees—preference eligible or not—whose positions the President, OPM, or an agency head, as applicable, determined had a policy-influencing character.
In
To summarize, the Pendleton Act of 1883 did not substantively limit the ability of agencies to remove employees for non-political reasons. Nor did subsequent executive orders or the Lloyd-La Follette Act. They instead required agencies to follow procedural steps and document the basis for their actions, but agencies remained the final judge of the reasons for dismissal. For the first six decades of the merit service employees could not appeal removals outside their agency.
Adverse action appeals began in the 1940s and were initially limited to preference eligible employees. Only in the 1960s did executive orders extend dismissal appeals to the broader Federal workforce. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court construed the Lloyd-La Follette Act to give civil service employees a property interest in their jobs, thus requiring constitutional due process before removals. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 reorganized and codified these procedures, creating the civil service framework that remains in effect today. The CSRA and the subsequent Due Process Amendments Act also authorized OPM and the President to exempt employees in policy-influencing positions from chapter 75 adverse action procedures and appeals.
President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13957 creating “Schedule F” in October 2020. As previously discussed, chapter 75 adverse action procedures do not cover employees in excepted service positions that the President, OPM, or an agency head have determined are policy-influencing.
Schedule F applied to policy-influencing positions “not normally subject to changes as a result of a Presidential transition.”
At the same time, Schedule F positions remained career jobs filled based on merit, not political connections. Any positions filled with the involvement of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel—the White House office responsible for selecting political appointees—could not go in Schedule F.
The order explained that these changes were necessary to enable agencies to more effectively address poor performance. It cited findings from the MSPB's Merit Principles Survey that less than a quarter of Federal employees believe their agency addresses poor performers effectively. Executive Order 13957 explained that poor performance in policy-influencing positions is especially problematic, as it can affect the performance of the entire agency.
Schedule F also came in the context of widespread reports of career staff “resistance” to Trump Administration policies.
Shortly after taking office President Biden issued Executive Order 14003 revoking Executive Order 13957 and abolishing Schedule F.
This analysis ignored the fact that Schedule F gave employees stronger removal protections than the Pendleton Act did.
During the 2024 election cycle President Trump announced plans to reissue Executive Order 13957 if re-elected.
Second, OPM used those same delegated presidential authorities to add a new subpart F to 5 CFR part 302. Subpart F prescribed mandatory procedures for transferring positions into the excepted service, or into a new excepted service schedule. Subpart F also required agencies notify employees that involuntary movements or transfers into a policy-influencing position would not affect their competitive status or civil service appeals and would allow employees to appeal to MSPB to the extent that an agency committed procedural error or indicated that the transfer would terminate adverse action appeals.
Third, OPM used its own statutory authority under 5 U.S.C. 7514 to provide that, notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2), any tenured civil service employees whose positions were moved, or who were otherwise involuntarily transferred into policy-influencing excepted service positions, would remain covered by chapter 75 procedures.
Under the April 2024 final rule, a re-issued Schedule F could not cover career positions, MSPB adjudicators could overturn transfers into Schedule F, and incumbent employees could keep MSPB appeal rights even if their positions were transferred into Schedule F.
The rulemaking responded to a National Treasury Employees Union petition for regulations to prevent the reinstatement of Schedule F.
Donald Trump won the 2024 Presidential election and promptly fulfilled his commitment, issuing Executive Order 14171 on January 20, 2025. The new order reinstated Executive Order 13957, while amending it in several ways. The order redesignates “Schedule F” as “Schedule Policy/Career.” This change in nomenclature emphasizes that covered positions remain career positions and are not being converted into political appointments—a common misperception of the original order. The order emphasizes that patronage remains prohibited by defining Schedule Policy/Career to only cover “career positions.”
Executive Order 14171 also requires OPM to apply Civil Service Rule 6.3(a) to Schedule Policy/Career positions.
Executive Order 14171 also overrode significant parts of the April 2024 final rule. That rule used delegated presidential authority to amend parts 210 and 302 of the civil service regulations.
In a structural difference with the original Executive Order 13957, the President—not OPM—will now move positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Pursuant to that Executive Order, agencies will review their workforces and petition OPM to recommend that the President move specific positions into Schedule Policy/Career. OPM will review these petitions and make the recommendations it deems appropriate.
Executive Order 14171 also added new guideposts about positions that may belong in Schedule Policy/Career. Under the order agencies will consider recommending both immediate and higher-level supervisors of Schedule Policy/Career employees for inclusion.
OPM has issued guidance about positions agencies should consider in their Schedule Policy/Career positions.
• Delegated or subdelegated authority to make decisions committed by law to the discretion of the agency head. This identifies a specific subcategory of employees with “substantial discretion to determine the manner in which the agency exercises functions committed to the agency by law,” which was one of the categories originally flagged for potential inclusion.
• Authority to bind an agency to a position, policy, or course of action without higher level review or with only limited higher-level review. If an employee has authority to bind their agency without higher-level review they are straightforwardly policy-determining. Such officials are largely—but not exclusively—political appointees out of scope for Schedule Policy/Career.
• Positions statutorily described as exercising important policy-determining or policy-making functions: directing the work of an organizational unit, being held accountable for the success of one or more specific programs or projects, or monitoring progress towards organizational goals and periodically evaluating and making appropriate adjustments to such goals.
• Substantive participation and discretionary authority in agency grantmaking, such as the substantive exercise of discretion in the drafting of funding opportunity announcements, evaluation of grant applications, or recommending or selecting grant recipients. Grantmaking is an important form of policymaking, so employees with a substantive discretionary role in how federal funding gets allocated may occupy policymaking positions.
• Advocacy for administration policy, either in public or before other governmental entities, such as Congress or state governments.
• Positions otherwise described in the applicable position description as entailing policy-making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating duties.
Executive Order 14171 rescinded Executive Order 14003 and directed agencies to reverse any changes to discipline or unacceptable performance policies that followed from it. This requires agencies to restore changes to disciplinary and performance policies from the first Trump Administration that the Biden Administration reversed.
President Trump also explained why he issued this order. Executive Order 14171 cited MSPB research showing only a 41 percent of supervisors are confident they could remove a subordinate for serious misconduct, and just 26 percent are confident they could remove one for poor performance.
OPM now proposes regulations to rescind the changes made by the April 2024 final rule, implement E.O. 14171, and establish Schedule Policy/Career for policy-influencing career positions. Schedule Policy/Career posts will be filled using standard career hiring procedures, while those who encumber such positions will be excepted from chapter 43 and 75 procedures for adverse actions and performance-based actions. Schedule Policy/Career employees will remain career employees, while being subject to elevated accountability for their performance and conduct. OPM proposes these changes for the reasons set forth below.
The Constitution gives the President authority to set federal workforce policy, vesting executive power exclusively in the President.
Relatedly, Executive Order 14171 has changed the underlying legal authorities under which OPM operates. Sections 3301 and 3302 of 5 U.S.C. recognize the constitutional vesting of Federal workforce management authority in the President. They statutorily authorize the President to prescribe regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service and to issue rules governing the civil service, respectively. The President can, and has, delegated that authority to OPM. In the April 2024 final rule OPM used this delegated presidential authority, as well as authority delegated under Executive Order 10577, to modify parts 210 and 302 of the civil service regulations.
OPM also now believes that it gave inadequate consideration to several factors when issuing the April 2024 final rule. Upon further consideration, OPM has concluded that these factors call for issuing the proposed regulations.
OPM received comments in the prior rulemaking showing that adverse action procedures and appeals make it very challenging for agencies to effectively address poor performance or serious misconduct.
The MSPB's 2016 Merit Principles Survey shows that less than a quarter of Federal employees believe their “organization addresses poor performers effectively.”
OPM removed this question from the FEVS in 2022. The FEVS now asks employees what usually happens to poor performers in their work unit. The modal response—ranging from between 40 to 56 percent of the workforce across survey years—is that the work unit has poor performers, but they remain on the job and continue to underperform.
Third-party researchers report similar findings. Researchers at Princeton and Vanderbilt Universities surveyed Federal executives, asking when under-performing managers and non-managers were reassigned or dismissed. The executives answered “rarely or never” in 64 and 70 percent of cases, respectively.
Research further shows that supervisors rarely take action because they do not believe their efforts will succeed. The 2016 Merit Principles Survey finds that only 41 percent of Federal supervisors are confident that they could remove a subordinate for serious misconduct, and just 26 percent are confident they could remove an employee for poor performance.
This is a longstanding problem. An MSPB analysis under the Clinton Administration concluded that “supervisors are usually advised [ ] that it is extremely hard to remove [poorly performing] employees and probably not worth the effort to try.” That study reported that less than a quarter of Federal supervisors who managed a poor performer proposed demoting or removing them.
Considerable evidence shows that Federal supervisors often find taking warranted adverse actions too difficult and uncertain to be worth the effort. When they do take action, their efforts are not infrequently subject to a protracted administrative process with an uncertain outcome. For example, the MSPB ordered reinstatement of the Chief of the U.S. Park Police, with back pay and interest, despite her repeated, proven misconduct, including serious violations of non-disclosure rules; repeatedly failing to carry out supervisory instructions; circumventing her chain of command; repeatedly violating agency rules; and condoning violations of agency rules by a subordinate.
In another case, the MSPB ordered reinstatement, with back pay and benefits, of the Executive Director of the National Council of Disability despite the fact that the agency head stated, in a sworn affidavit, that the Executive Director occupied a policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating character and the agency had lost confidence in her.
Failure to address misconduct and poor performance directly undermines Federal Merit Systems Principles.
A high-profile example of this phenomenon came to light in a recent FDIC audit. Following public complaints, independent auditors examined the FDIC workplace in depth.
Even more concerningly, the investigators found the FDIC almost never seriously disciplined employees who engaged in misconduct. The agency's Anti-Harassment program received 92 complaints between 2015 and 2023. Only two resulted in a suspension. Two more resulted in a reprimand. None resulted in a demotion, much less a removal from Federal service.
The April 2024 final rule provided a cursory and inadequate response to these facts. OPM noted that agencies fire approximately 10,000 employees a year for performance or misconduct.
The April 2024 final rule argued that FEVS responses are uninformative about Federal performance management because line employees generally do not know what steps their agency takes to address another employee's underperformance.
The April 2024 final rule also concluded that FEVS data does not show the government has a numerical prevalence of poor performers. For example, it explained that in a work unit of 100 employees and one poor performer, 99 employees might report the continued existence of a poor performer without poor performance
OPM no longer finds this a convincing rationale for rejecting the evidence from FEVS surveys. The hypothetical OPM provided does not demonstrate that poor performance is rare. Other data suggests otherwise. The National Commission on Public Service, chaired by Paul Volcker, reported that Federal employees believe approximately one-in-four of their colleagues are poor performers.
Moreover, Congress has asked the executive branch to remove employees who cannot or will not improve inadequate performance—regardless of their prevalence.
Additionally, the President is the official constitutionally charged with taking care that the law is faithfully executed and statutorily charged with determining when conditions of good administration necessitate new excepted service schedules.
OPM accordingly now concludes that chapter 43 and 75 procedures significantly impair agencies' ability to hold Federal employees accountable for poor performance or misconduct, and the proposed regulations implementing Schedule Policy/Career are necessary to ensure high standards of performance and accountability in important policy-influencing positions.
OPM previously argued that even if chapter 43 and 75 procedures made addressing poor performance or misconduct difficult, the appropriate solution would be to try to convince Congress of that proposition and work for corresponding legislative changes to title 5.
During the rulemaking process for the April 2024 rule OPM received extensive comments documenting that some career Federal employees engage in “policy resistance.”
In the prior rulemaking OPM received many comments from career Federal employees stating that they and their colleagues fulfilled their duties impartially, even when they disagreed with the underlying policies. Executive Order 14171 recognized that many Federal employees do this, and that their performance is a credit to the civil service. OPM also agrees that there are many truly nonpartisan career employees who faithfully carry out their duties irrespective of their personal preferences.
Academic researchers have long studied the “principal-agent” problem in the Federal bureaucracy. The foundational framework for many public administration scholars and political scientists is that career employees (the agents) do not impartially implement the will of Congress or the President (the principals) but have diverging policy preferences and agendas of their own that they actively seek to advance—at times over and against the will of their principals.
For example, researchers documented that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) career staff moved policy in the opposite direction than what principals sought in the Reagan Administration. President Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory on a platform of deregulation, and Anne Gorsuch—his EPA administrator—sought to reduce EPA enforcement stringency. EPA career staff not only rebuffed these directives, but they also actually increased enforcement stringency during this period. The author concluded that “the influence of elected institutions is limited when an agency has substantial
Other research documents that career Federal employees often do not offer “neutral competence” but what the researchers term “politicized competence”—developing competency in agency operations, but using that competency to advance their personal political preferences.
From the other perspective, many academics conclude that bureaucratic autonomy is beneficial. Some argue it creates a beneficial “internal separation of powers” within the executive branch.
News reports have also documented widespread career employee policy resistance. Within the first month of the first Trump presidency the Washington Post ran an article entitled “Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump.” The article documented career employee efforts to undermine the President's agenda. For example, a career Department of Justice employee with grantmaking responsibilities described plans to slow-walk operations if the new administration attempted to shift grantmaking priorities. This employee explained that “[y]ou're going to see the bureaucrats using time to their advantage.”
In December 2017 Bloomberg News explained that “Washington bureaucrats are quietly working to undermine Trump's agenda” and documented how “career staff have found ways to obstruct, slow down or simply ignore their new leader, the president.”
Reports now indicate that some career employees intend to undermine the policy agenda of the second Trump Administration. Some Federal employees have openly acknowledged these plans. The Washington Post recently covered an EPA career employee explaining that “she and her co-workers are focused on how to make sure the new administration does not walk back environmental regulations achieved under Biden.”
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) employee broadcast her resistance plans to the entire agency. Soon after taking office a second time, President Trump signed executive orders directing the EEOC to prioritize investigations into employers that engage in unlawful DEIA discrimination and to rescind guidance that required employers to give male employees who self-identify as female access to women's bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.
OPM is also aware of recent cases of senior career employees not just professing plans to insert their personal politics into their official duties, but actually doing so. Multiple FLRA decisions chastised a career regional director for “willful noncompliance” with an earlier Authority order.
Trump Administration officials also reported that career attorneys in the Educational Opportunities Section (EOS) of the DOJ Civil Rights Division (CRT) would not assist in litigation charging Yale University with racially discriminating against Asian and Caucasian applicants.
Public polling also indicates that a plurality of senior Federal employees would resist directives from President Trump they disliked. A survey asked Federal employees making more than $75,000 in the Washington DC region what they would do if President Trump gave them an order that was legal, but they believed was bad policy. Forty-five percent said they would follow the order. Forty-six percent said they would do what they thought was best. Only 17 percent of senior Federal employees who voted for Kamala Harris said they would follow President Trump's directive.
These points were raised in the prior rulemaking. Upon further analysis OPM has concluded it gave a cursory and inadequate response to these concerns. The April 2024 final rule ignored the news reports documenting career employee resistance.
OPM instead responded to a handful of studies commenters cited, arguing that they presented a nuanced and measured picture that did not support claims of widespread bureaucratic resistance.
OPM also accepted criticism of some of the reports of the bureaucratic partisanship provided by commenters who supported the rule.
The April 2024 final rule did not grapple with the broader weight of
OPM now also believes that career employee partisanship and policy resistance is a serious problem because it undermines democracy. If the American people do not like the policies elected officials advance, they can vote for new leadership. This often happens; partisan control of the White House or a chamber of Congress switched in nine of the past ten general elections. But Americans have little recourse when career employees advance their personal agendas or undermine elected officials' policies. They are electorally unaccountable. America was founded on the principle of government by consent of the governed. Career employees who resist elected officials' policy choices attack the foundations of American democracy.
OPM recognizes the value in having many perspectives present in an agency, and in career civil servants who disagree or see problems with a policy presenting their objections. Diverse perspectives frequently improve decision making. But, when a career employee goes from voicing disagreement to resisting policy decisions, they undermine democracy and the Constitution.
OPM also recognizes that a meaningful number of career employees insert their personal politics into their official duties, and that such behavior undermines American democracy. OPM has concluded that these challenges make Schedule Policy/Career necessary to increase policy-influencing officials' accountability to the President and effectively discipline employees who engage in such behavior.
Even if this evidence were not enough to persuade OPM—and it is—the President has determined bureaucratic partisanship undermines his ability to execute the law and Schedule Policy/Career is necessary to combat this behavior. Executive Order 14171 explained Schedule Policy/Career is necessary because “there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.”
The CSRA authorizes the President or OPM to exclude employees in excepted service positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” from chapter 75 procedural requirements and MSPB appeals. The April 2024 final rule amended 5 CFR 210.102 to define the phrases “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” and “confidential or policy-determining” to refer exclusively to noncareer political appointments. OPM cited what it asserted was longstanding usage and legislative history to conclude that these phrases are terms of art with that specific meaning.
Upon further review, OPM has determined that its prior conclusion was erroneous and, while the “policy-influencing” terms do encompass political appointments, they are not exclusively limited to them. Rather, these terms have the natural, plain English meaning of describing positions involved in determining, making, or advocating for government policy, or positions of a confidential nature. Such positions include, but are not restricted to, political appointments.
The problem with OPM's prior construction is that the CSRA's text refutes it. In 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(2)—also part of the CSRA—Congress defined Senior Executive Service (SES) positions as those graded above GS-15 that direct the work of an organizational unit, are held accountable for the success of one or more specific programs or projects, monitor progress toward organizational goals and periodically evaluates and makes adjustments to such goals, or “otherwise exercise[ ] important policy-making, policy-determining, or other executive functions.” In 5 U.S.C. 3134(b) Congress prohibited more than 10 percent of SES positions from being filled by noncareer (
This usage is incompatible with the terms “policy-determining” or “policy-making” being terms of art that refer only to political appointments. Congress expressly used these terms to describe and define thousands of career positions in 5 U.S.C. 3132. That usage sheds light on the terms' meaning in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2). As the Supreme Court has often explained, the “normal rule of statutory construction [is] that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”
Further, the CSRA uses different terms to expressly differentiate political and civil service positions: “noncareer” and “career” appointments, respectively.
Congress used the terms “career” and “noncareer” to specifically distinguish career civil service positions from political appointments. The CSRA separately used the terms “policy-making” and “policy-determining” to describe General Schedule positions that could be exempted from adverse action procedures, and also used these terms to describe all SES positions. It is a “cardinal doctrine” that this shift in language implies a shift in meaning; “policy-determining” and “policy-making” are not synonymous with “noncareer.”
Congress also knew how to extend adverse action procedures to all career employees. Subchapter V of chapter 75 gives adverse action procedures to any SES “career appointee” who passes their probationary period.
Accepting OPM's prior reading of the policy-influencing phrases would mean believing the terms “policy-determining” and “policy-making” were well known terms of art that referred exclusively to political appointees, and Congress used them in that way in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2), but that Congress used these terms to convey a different meaning when defining SES positions in section 3132. That interpretation would also mean that Congress introduced an entirely different term into title 5—“noncareer”—to describe political appointments instead of using the well-established term of art used elsewhere in the CSRA. And that interpretation would also require one to conclude that the differences in language in subchapters II and V—with the latter explicitly giving all career SES members adverse action procedures and the former using very different terminology to define adverse action coverage—convey no substantive difference in meaning.
OPM concludes that such an interpretation makes little sense and does not reflect proper statutory interpretation. The best reading of 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2) is that the terms “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” have their ordinary, plain English meaning and describe positions involved in determining, making, or advocating for policy, or confidential positions. Such positions include but are not limited to political appointments. This construction gives the same meaning to the terms “policy-making” and “policy-determining” throughout the CSRA while recognizing that the terms “career” and “noncareer” have a different meaning, referring to civil service and political appointments respectively. This interpretation also recognizes that Congress specifically gave adverse action procedures to career SES members and denied them to noncareer SES appointees, while using very different language in the section of chapter 75 governing the competitive and excepted services.
OPM previously gave two reasons for rejecting these textualist arguments. First, OPM argued that this construction would give career SES members greater protection from removal than lower-ranking subordinates. OPM concluded “it does not follow” that, if Congress intended to allow at-will removals of employees with policy responsibilities, Congress would give the executive branch greater authority to remove employees with fewer such responsibilities and less ability to remove those with greater responsibilities.
Second, OPM previously argued that the phrase “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” in section 7511(b)(2) is a term of art with clear history and consistent usage, while Congress wrote on a clean slate when it created the SES and used different structure and language in section 3132.
The history that OPM and commenters pointed to instead used 7511(b)(2)'s constituent terms as separate descriptors. For example, the Brownlow Report spoke of “policy-determining posts.”
The CSRA, by contrast, did not use any of these pre-existing terms or phrases. It instead used a broader and more expansive formulation, “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating.”
If OPM's prior reading were correct, and the phrase “confidential or policy-determining” used in Executive Order 10440 was a term of art that referred exclusively to political appointees, there would be no reason to add the terms “policy-making” or “policy-advocating” to it. Under that reading those additions would be mere surplusage. Congress's deliberate decision to add additional new terms to the prior formulation suggests each term is meant to have independent meaning.
If anything was arguably a term of art it was the terms “policy-determining” or “policy-making”—not the CSRA's expansive new phrase “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, policy-advocating character”.
The fact that Congress was writing on a clean slate in creating the SES makes little difference. Congress often uses terms of art when writing new statutes, precisely so that courts and the public need not guess at their meaning. If the terms policy-making and policy-advocating were terms of art that exclusively described political appointments, they would carry that meaning into 5 U.S.C. 3132. The fact that Congress instead described career SES positions as exercising policy-making and policy-determining functions shows Congress did not use those terms in that manner.
Construing the terms policy-determining and policy-making to refer exclusively to a small number of political appointments is also theoretically and practically unsound. Policy-making authority is not cabined to few political leaders. Early public administration scholars believed otherwise, drawing a theoretical division between policy-determining political positions and line administrative employees. In the 1880s future President Woodrow Wilson argued giving career bureaucrats power over technical details of policy implementation was unproblematic because those details were separate from policy making.
Many scholars now recognize that it is not feasible to draw a bright line between politics and administration. As one prominent scholar explains: “Administrators help to shape policy, and they give it specific content and meaning in the process of implementation.”
The histories of Schedules A and C bear out the fact that policy-making is not cleanly divisible from administration. As OPM noted in the April 2024 final rule, the Roosevelt Administration's Brownlow Committee originally proposed that policy-determining exceptions from the civil service should be “relatively few in number,” consisting mainly of “the heads of executive departments, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, the members of the regulatory commissions, the heads of a few of the large bureaus engaged in activities with important policy implications, the chief diplomatic posts, and a limited number of other key positions.”
However, when President Franklin Roosevelt placed “policy-determining” positions in Schedule A, and President Dwight Eisenhower subsequently put them in Schedule C, they swept much more broadly to lower levels of the bureaucracy. Saying that only policy-determining positions went into Schedule C did not provide clear guidelines. The Second Hoover Commission noted “[t]he term ‘policy-determining’ has continued to be employed without much refinement . . . This criterion is all right as far as it goes, but it is so great an oversimplification that it does not give adequate guidance.”
The history of the executive branch demonstrates that “policy-determining” positions are not restricted to senior positions like assistant secretaries but encompass positions far lower in the bureaucracy as well. While the Second Hoover Commission recommended narrowing eligibility for Schedule C, this recommendation was never acted upon. Congress then used the broad and indefinite terms “policy-determining” and “policy-making” in the CSRA.
Many career Federal employees exercise a degree of policy-determining authority or substantively participate in policy-making. The CSRA and the subsequent Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act gave the President and OPM discretion to determine what positions should be excepted from adverse action appeals on account of their policy responsibilities. It is theoretically and practically untenable to interpret the terms “policy-making” and “policy-determining” to describe only a small number of purely political positions.
Upon further review, OPM has determined that the additional reasons it previously gave for interpreting the phrase “positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” as a term of art do not withstand scrutiny.
OPM cited to legislative history, such as the conference report for the Civil Service Due Process Amendments Act.
OPM also explained that it was construing the policy-influencing terms to refer exclusively to political appointees to honor Congressional intent.
Congressional intent must be gleaned from the text because members of Congress could have different reasons for passing the same language. It is possible that some members of Congress did not anticipate that the policy-influencing terms could be applied to career positions and intended them to apply to only political appointments. The April 2024 final rule embraced that interpretation. But it could also be the case that other members of Congress recognized that the terms could apply to career positions and wanted to retain that flexibility if necessary. Other members of Congress might have preferred to limit the exception to political appointees but recognized, as discussed in section III(C)(4) below, that giving policymaking career employees strong tenure protections would create serious constitutional issues. Those members may have preferred language that encompassed career positions to avoid a potential constitutional conflict. The members of Congress who voted for the CSRA and the subsequent Due Process Amendments Act likely separately held all three positions. OPM previously failed to appreciate that Congressional intent must be discerned from the text of the laws passed. That text shows Congress used the terms “policy-making” and “policy-determining” to describe both career positions and political appointments.
Further, the legislative history to which OPM previously referred consisted of a general description of Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C that was intended to provide an explanation of why Schedule C employees were not being granted MSPB appeal rights: because they “have little expectation of continuing employment beyond the administration during which they were appointed.”
OPM and a commenter also noted that a number of statutes enacted after the CSRA expressly describe policy-influencing positions as “political appointments.”
These limited statutory definitions likely reflect the fact that until Executive Order 13957 successive administrations had only used the policy-influencing exceptions for political appointments. These new laws were passed against that backdrop. Congress likely assumed only political appointees would fill policy-influencing positions for purposes of those laws because, at the time they were passed, those were the only officials who did. But those laws did not contain any provisions cabining the President's discretion to apply section 7511(b)(2) more broadly in the future, nor did they contain any provisions modifying the definition of “policy-making” or “policy-determining” for CSRA purposes. OPM accordingly now believes that this post-enactment history should not be interpreted to restrict the President's authority to exempt positions under section 7511(b)(2).
OPM also argued that defining policy-influencing positions as political appointments was necessary for consistency with MSPB interpretations because Congress used the same policy-influencing terms in 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(B)(i) to define positions covered by Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP).
For these reasons OPM has concluded that the policy-influencing terms are not a term of art that refer only to political appointees in Schedule C, and that they can encompass career positions with confidential or policy responsibilities as well. OPM therefore proposes to rescind its prior restrictive definition.
While OPM believes the policy-influencing terms have their plain English meaning and are not a term of art, OPM further notes that, even if those terms were a term of art, that would not make a practical difference. Assuming arguendo that the policy-influencing terms should be construed as a term of art for political appointees, that would simply mean that all positions the President determines are policy-influencing are technically political positions. Even this construction would not, however, prevent the President from exempting any career positions with substantive policy-influencing responsibilities from chapter 75 procedures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3302, regardless of the number of
As discussed in greater detail below, OPM now believes that title 5 does not require an adverse action appeals process for career employees in the excepted service whose positions are determined to be policy-influencing. Under E.O. 13957, as amended, and the proposed rule, a presidential determination that a position is policy-influencing terminates chapter 75's applicability to such position regardless of whether it is subsequently designated as political (
Further, under the Constitution, the President has discretion to use his Article II executive power to require his subordinates to treat technically political positions as though they were career positions. The Constitution vests the executive power in the President alone.
Presidents have often treated formally political appointments as career positions. Ambassadors, for example, are one of the few offices expressly provided for in the Appointments Clause. The Constitution requires they be appointed by the President with Senate consent; no law could make them career positions. Nonetheless there is a longstanding practice of appointing career members of the Foreign Service as ambassadors, especially to less prominent postings. Prior to the 2025 Presidential transition most U.S. ambassadors or nominees for vacant posts were career Foreign Service officers. Congress could not and did not require this. Presidents of both parties have instead chosen to fill these posts apolitically because it helps advance their foreign policy agendas. Similarly, nothing in title 5 prevents the President from treating nominally political appointments as career positions.
President Trump has decided to put policy-influencing career positions into Schedule Policy/Career. OPM now believes the best reading of the statute is that the policy-influencing terms encompass both career and political positions. But if that reading of the statute is incorrect the President can still determine that positions with substantive policy responsibilities are policy-influencing, exempting incumbents in those positions from chapter 75, while directing his subordinates to continue to treat those incumbents like career employees.
Executive Order 14171 used presidential authority to prohibit agencies from giving effect to the April 2024 final rule's restrictive definition of policy-influencing positions.
Further review has convinced OPM that the April 2024 final rule's amendments to subpart D of 5 CFR part 752, which extended adverse action procedures and appeals to incumbent employees whose positions were declared policy-influencing or who were involuntarily transferred into policy-influencing positions, exceeded OPM's statutory authority. Accordingly, OPM now believes it is necessary to rescind these amendments.
Chapter 75's statutory text determines its scope. Section 7511(b)(2)(A) of 5 U.S.C. provides that subchapter II (covering adverse actions in the competitive and excepted services) does not apply to an employee whose position has been determined to be policy-influencing by the President for a position the President has excepted from the competitive service. Under this statutory directive, employees whose positions the President has excepted from the competitive service based on their policy-influencing character are categorically exempt from chapter 75 procedures and subsequent MSPB appeals. The language is clear and unambiguous.
The April 2024 final rule nonetheless purported to extend chapter 75 procedures and MSPB appeals to employees in policy-influencing excepted service positions if their positions were so designated after they were initially hired or if they were involuntarily transferred into that position. OPM now recognizes that it had no authority to extend subchapter II's coverage like this. Section 7511(b)(2) categorically excludes policy-influencing excepted service positions, irrespective of whether incumbents filling those positions were previously covered by chapter 75. While the final rule repeatedly described Federal employees' as possessing “accrued rights” to adverse action procedures and appeals, it did not point to any statutory provisions conveying such personal rights.
Section 7514 of 5 U.S.C. allows OPM to issue regulations carrying the out purposes of subchapter II. Such authority does not include extending its coverage to positions Congress has specifically excluded.
OPM justified the amendments to subpart D by appealing to the D.C. Circuit's decision in
However, OPM's analysis of
Modern adverse action procedures for most Federal employees are now found in subchapter II of chapter 75. They are derived from language contained in the Veterans Preference Act, not the Lloyd-La Follette Act. Subchapter II requires adverse action procedures for “a removal,” “a suspension for more than 14 days,” “a reduction in grade,” “a reduction in pay”, and “a furlough of 30 days or less.”
Further inquiry into the history of the CSRA's statutory language demonstrates that “a removal” means a “discharge” and does not cover reclassifications or transfers into the excepted service. The VPA gave procedural protections and CSC appeals to any preference eligible veteran—including those in the excepted service—who was “discharged, suspended for more than thirty days, furloughed without pay, reduced in rank or compensation, or debarred for future appointment.”
Congress then recodified title 5 in the 1960s. That legislation codified VPA adverse action procedures in subchapter II of chapter 75 and applied to “a removal.”
Ordinary English and this statutory history indicate that the term “removal” in the CSRA means a discharge from the Federal service and does not encompass moves into the excepted service. Transfers into the excepted service are not adverse actions covered by subchapter II. Unlike the Lloyd-La Follette Act, nothing in the CSRA gives employees an accrued personal right to adverse action procedures or appeals before they can be moved into the excepted service.
The April 2024 final rule ignored these facts. The rule instead pointed to a 1988 OPM transition memo advising agencies that civil service employees involuntarily moved into Schedule C positions retained adverse action procedures.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking OPM pointed to 5 U.S.C. 7511(c) as another source of authority for extending chapter 75 procedures to cover employees reclassified into a policy-influencing excepted service schedule.
The April 2024 final rule also cited several cases in which the MSPB held a determination that a position is policy-influencing does not except that position from adverse action procedures unless it occurs before the employee is appointed.
OPM believes
OPM now recognizes that 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2) ties exceptions from adverse action procedures to the nature and status of an employees' position alone. Their personal status or history may be relevant for other chapter 75 exceptions, such as those for probationary employees or reemployed annuitants. But it is irrelevant to the policy-influencing exception. OPM has consequently concluded that it lacked authority to issue the subpart D regulations extending chapter 75 to cover employees reclassified or moved into policy-influencing positions. OPM is accordingly now proposing to rescind these changes to subpart D.
OPM is also proposing these rules to make it clear that Schedule Policy/Career positions remain career positions. OPM is aware of widespread concerns that the prior Schedule F would be a means of converting career positions to political positions. The proposed regulations reflect Executive Order 14171's directive that employees in Policy/Career positions remain career employees who are neither expected nor required to personally support the President or his policies. However, they must nonetheless implement the President's agenda faithfully and to the best of their ability. OPM believes formally incorporating this distinction into the civil service regulations would help combat misinformation about the nature and purpose of Executive Order 14171.
The OPM Director has direct statutory authority to execute, administer, and enforce the civil service rules and regulations, as well as most laws governing the civil service.
Congress also gave OPM broad regulatory authority over Federal employment throughout title 5.
OPM's authorities coexist with the President's direct authority over the civil service. Title 5 provides for the President to prescribe rules governing the competitive service and regulations governing admissions into the civil service.
OPM accordingly proposes amending its regulations in 5 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, as summarized below to strengthen employee accountability and improve the management of the Federal workforce.
OPM proposes to amend its 5 CFR part 213 regulations (the Excepted Service) to incorporate Schedule Policy/Career into OPM's civil service regulations. These changes are not legally necessary to implement Executive Order 13957, as amended, or Schedule Policy/Career; the order's provisions are self-executing and supersede OPM regulations issued under delegated presidential authority. However, it promotes clarity and reduces confusion for OPM regulations to reflect the applicable legal framework governing the civil service. Moreover, OPM independently would make these changes for the policy reasons described in this proposed rule. Subpart A of part 213 generally defines and provides for the parameters governing the excepted service, while subpart C sets forth specific excepted service schedules. OPM proposes the following changes to 5 CFR part 213:
Section 213.101 defines terms relating to the excepted service. OPM proposes amending these definitions to add two new definitions of “career positions” and “noncareer position” for purposes of part 213. These definitions clarify the distinction between noncareer Schedule C positions and career Schedule Policy/Career positions.
OPM proposes to define a noncareer position as a position that carries no expectation of continued employment beyond the presidential administration and whose occupant is, as a matter of
OPM further proposes to define a career position as any position that is not noncareer. OPM notes this definition of career position would include temporary positions and term appointments, although these positions do not have tenure or typically lead to an extended career in government. OPM proposes this language to distinguish such positions—which are filled without respect to political loyalty—from noncareer political appointments for purposes of part 213. These definitions would not apply throughout the civil service regulations but would be used only for purposes of clarifying which positions are appropriately classified in Schedule C and which belong in Schedule Policy/Career.
OPM is also proposing to amend the § 213.101(a) definition of excepted service by clarifying that an employee encumbering an excepted service position is in the excepted service, irrespective of whether they possess competitive status under § 212.401(b). This is consistent with the statutory definition of excepted service, which provides that the excepted service consists of those civil service positions that are not in the competitive service or SES without any reference to an incumbent's personal history or status.
As will be further discussed in II(C)(3) below, however, OPM recognizes that individuals moved involuntarily from the competitive service to the excepted service may retain competitive status—eligibility for appointment to competitive service positions—even if they themselves are in the excepted service.
OPM proposes to amend § 213.102 to state that the President may place positions in Schedule Policy/Career. While Civil Service Rule 6.2 now authorizes OPM to place positions in Schedule Policy/Career, Executive Order 13957, as amended, directs OPM to make recommendations to the President about what positions should go into that schedule rather than approve agency petitions itself. The proposed amendments reflect the fact that President Trump has reserved to himself the final decision about which positions will go in Schedule Policy/Career.
OPM proposes to amend § 213.103 to include references to Schedule Policy/Career where applicable throughout.
OPM proposes to amend § 213.104 to include references to Schedule Policy/Career where applicable throughout, as well as references to existing excepted service Schedules A, B, C, and D throughout. As with § 213.102, OPM does not propose to add references to Schedule E administrative law judges, retaining that for a future rulemaking.
Section 213.3301 sets forth the criteria for Schedule C appointments. OPM proposes to amend the heading to align with the text of Civil Service Rule 6.2, as amended by Executive Order 13957. This would describe Schedule C positions as those of a confidential or policy-determining character normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition, rather than just positions of a confidential or policy determining character.
OPM also proposes to modify the body of § 213.3301 to expressly define Schedule C positions as noncareer positions. Under these amendments agencies could “make appointments under this section to
OPM also proposes to eliminate the reference in this section to the § 210.102 definition of “confidential or policy-determining.” Executive Order 14171 rendered this definition inoperative and, as discussed below, OPM is proposing to remove it from the civil service regulations.
OPM is proposing to add a new § 213.3501 to subpart C for appointments to Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service. Schedule Policy/Career would cover “career positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character that are not in the Senior Executive Service.” Since § 213.101 defines “career position” to exclude noncareer appointments, political appointees could not go in Schedule Policy/Career. This language, as well as the schedule's name, makes it clear that Schedule Policy/Career is not to be used for patronage purposes and applies only to career employees hired based on merit.
OPM is proposing to reinforce Schedule Policy/Career's status as covering the career civil service by incorporating into these regulations E.O. 14171's directives that career employees (1) are not required to pledge personal loyalty to the President or his policies, and (2) must diligently implement and advance, to the best of their ability, the policies of the President and the administration, and that failure to do so is grounds for dismissal. This language clarifies what is required of Schedule Policy/Career employees: they do not need to personally support the President's policies, but they must execute them faithfully and to the best of their ability.
OPM is also proposing that individuals appointed to Schedule Policy/Career positions are not subject to trial periods, the excepted service equivalent of probationary periods. Since Schedule Policy/Career positions will be excepted from chapter 43 and 75 procedures throughout their service,
For the reasons set forth in section I(C)(2)(iii), OPM has concluded that the best interpretation of the CSRA is that the phrases “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, and policy-advocating” and “confidential or policy-determining” are not terms of art that refer to political appointments in Schedule C. Rather, they have their plain English meaning—confidential positions or those that determine, make, or advocate for policy. 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(2) further indicates that policy-determining and policy-making responsibilities include functions of SES members such as directing the work of an organizational unit, being held accountable for the success of specific programs or projects, or monitoring progress towards, evaluating, and adjusting organizational goals. The policy-influencing term thus potentially apply to both career and noncareer positions with policy roles. The April 2024 final rule made several regulatory changes intended to clarify that these policy-influencing terms encompass only political appointments in Schedule C. Having reconsidered this conclusion, OPM now proposes to reverse the changes made by the April 2024 final rule.
OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 210 (Basic Concepts and Definitions (General)), to remove the definitions for the terms “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” and “confidential or policy-determining” added by the April 2024 final rule. That rule amended subpart A of part 210 to define these phrases to refer exclusively to political appointments. Under those amendments any career employees moved into policy-influencing positions are definitionally converted into political appointees. Removing these definitions will clarify that both political and career positions can be policy-influencing, and that the President's decision to strengthen accountability in policy-influencing positions does not simultaneously impose a personal loyalty test.
OPM is proposing these amendments for several reasons. As discussed above, OPM now believes the best reading of the CSRA is that the policy-influencing terms encompass career positions. Moreover, even if OPM's prior interpretation was correct, the President has inherent constitutional authority to treat political appointments as career positions. He can always make appointments based on performance instead of political loyalty. President Trump has decided that keeping Schedule Policy/Career appointments career positions improves the administration of the executive branch. Maintaining OPM's regulatory definition would only create confusion about how the President wants these positions treated. They are policy-influencing positions that could be made Schedule C political appointments, but where the President wants hiring and firing to instead occur based on performance. This is within the President's constitutional prerogative, and OPM believes its regulations should facilitate rather than undermine the President's management decisions. OPM accordingly proposes to remove conflicting regulatory definitions that classify Policy/Career positions as political appointments.
Further, Executive Order 14171 overrode these part 210 definitions and rendered them inoperative. OPM's prior part 210 amendments were issued using delegated presidential authority, not OPM's own statutory authority.
The April 2024 final rule made “conforming changes” to 5 CFR 213.3301, 432.102, 451.302, 752.201, and 752.401 to “standardize the phrasing used to describe this type of position.”
However, OPM proposes to rescind the changes made to 5 CFR 451.302 and return to the prior language of “confidential or policy-making” rather than “confidential or policy-determining” under the April 2024 final rule. This reflects OPM's belief that “policy-determining” and “policy-making” are not synonyms for political appointees but refer to individuals involved in determining or making agency policy, respectively.
The April 2024 final rule added the term “policy-determining” to the list of characteristics which authorize excepted service positions' exclusion from part 302 procedures. With the provisions added to 302.102(d) providing that the positions in Schedule Policy/Career will be filled using the provisions that would have otherwise applied (
OPM's April 2024 final rule allowed employees whose positions were moved or who were involuntarily transferred into a policy-influencing excepted service position to nonetheless remain covered by chapter 75 adverse action procedures and MSPB appeals. As explained above in section I(C)(3), OPM has concluded it did not have statutory authority to extend chapter 75 to cover employees in such positions. OPM now proposes to rescind the changes made in the prior rulemaking and clarify that chapter 75 does not apply to employees in Schedule C and Schedule Policy/Career positions. OPM is also proposing to amend its part 432 regulations to exclude Schedule Policy/Career positions from chapter 43 performance-based removal procedures.
OPM proposes these changes for several reasons. First, as discussed in section I(C)(3) above, OPM has concluded that the April 2024 final rule's part 752 changes exceed OPM's statutory authority. Section 7511(b)(2) of 5 U.S.C. excludes employees in policy-influencing excepted service positions from chapter 75. Nothing in (b)(2) authorizes such employees to retain an accrued personal right to adverse action procedures. The (b)(2) exclusion is tied solely to the nature of the position, not the personal status of the employee. OPM has no authority to extend chapter 75 to cover employees in positions Congress expressly excluded. OPM therefore proposes these amendments to
Second, even if the April 2024 amendments were not unlawful, OPM would still propose these changes as a matter of policy. They are necessary to hold employees in sensitive policy-influencing positions accountable and to combat corruption. As discussed in section I(C)(2) above, adverse action procedures make effectively addressing poor performance, misconduct, or corruption very challenging. Federal employees' modal response to what happens to poor performers in their work unit is that they remain and continue to underperform. Surveys show Federal supervisors widely lack confidence in their ability to remove employees for poor performance or even serious misconduct. This has led to situations like that at the FDIC, where agencies have not taken necessary adverse actions against corrupt employees. This undermines the morale of the majority of Federal employees who work diligently.
Decades of experience with the CSRA have shown that chapter 43 and 75 procedures are difficult to use and often deter agencies from taking necessary personnel actions. This directly undermines Merit Principle Four, that employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for public interest. It also undermines Merit Principle Six, that employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards.
Third, and relatedly, OPM is proposing these amendments to strengthen democracy and nonpartisanship in the civil service. Under the CSRA Federal employees “enjoy a de facto form of life tenure, akin to that of Article III judges” and some “take full-throated advantage of it.”
Partisan career employees undermine the government's democratic accountability to the American people. They can make it very difficult for agencies to implement policies they personally oppose—no matter what the voters chose. Exempting policy-influencing employees from adverse action procedures is necessary to give the President and his appointees the tools to ensure career employees actually perform their duties in a nonpartisan manner. Under OPM's proposed regulations agencies will be able to quickly separate Schedule Policy/Career employees who inject ideology or partisanship into their official duties instead of carrying out the elected President's policies. The proposed changes will help ensure the civil service is nonpartisan in fact as well as name.
The April 2024 final rule stated that concerns with poor performance, misconduct, or partisan career employees could be addressed through existing mechanisms, such as chapter 75 procedures or escalating problems to agency leadership.
Fourth, OPM is proposing these regulations to support the new President's management policies. Americans re-elected President Trump, who has determined it is necessary to except policy-influencing career employees from adverse action procedures. Indeed, he considered it so important he signed Executive Order 14171 within hours of being sworn in for his second term. Even if OPM were not independently persuaded that these regulations were necessary (and it is), OPM would defer to the President's judgement and propose these regulations to support the President's management policies. The President is the official constitutionally vested with the executive power and entrusted with the duty to take care the law be faithfully executed. OPM regulations should support the President's civil service policies.
Accordingly, OPM proposes the following changes to 5 CFR parts 432 and 752:
The CSRA allows OPM to regulatorily exclude excepted service positions from chapter 43 performance-based removal procedures.
OPM is proposing to amend § 432.102(f)(10) to remove the reference to the § 210.102 definition, remove the language indicating policy-influencing positions excepted by OPM are necessarily Schedule C positions, and remove the proviso regarding incumbents involuntarily transferred.
These changes will bring the part 432 regulations into conformity with the changes OPM proposes making to parts 210, 213, and 752. As discussed above, OPM is proposing to remove the § 210.102 definition. Retaining regulatory references to a non-existent definition would make little sense. The civil service rules currently provide for Schedule Policy/Career, and OPM is proposing to amend part 213 to reflect this, so it would be misleading to state that Schedule C positions are the only policy-influencing positions in the excepted service. Removing the exception for involuntary transfers also follows OPM's proposed amendments to part 752 and ensures employees in Schedule Policy/Career are treated consistently in chapters 43 and 75. The proposed regulations clarify that agencies do not have to employ chapter 43 procedures to remove employees in Schedule Policy/Career for poor performance.
OPM proposes to keep the changes the April 2024 final rule made to CFR 752.201—namely to modify language in 5 CFR 752.201(b)(1) to conform with the statutory language in 5 U.S.C. 7501. This proposed change to 5 CFR 752.201(b)(1) conforms the regulatory language to the decisions of the Federal Circuit in
Subpart D of part 752 implements subchapter II of chapter 75. Subpart D applies to a removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough for 30 days or less. Section 7511(b)(2) of 5 U.S.C. excludes from subchapter II, and thus subpart D, excepted service employees in policy-influencing positions. OPM is proposing to revoke the changes the April 2024 final rule made to subpart D. OPM is also proposing to clarify that employees reclassified or transferred into policy-influencing positions are excluded from subpart D. These changes are expected to increase policy-influencing employees' accountability for their performance and conduct. This will combat insubordination, corruption and underperformance while strengthening nonpartisanship in the civil service.
Section 752.401 governs the scope of subpart D. Paragraph (c) lists the positions subpart D covers and paragraph (d) lists positions it excludes. In paragraph (c), the April 2024 final rule added employees who are moved involuntarily into the excepted service and employees who are moved involuntarily into a different schedule of the excepted service and still occupies either that position or another position to which the employee was moved involuntarily. These changes were intended to extend the subpart to cover employees who were reclassified or involuntarily transferred into a policy-influencing excepted position. OPM is proposing to remove these phrases throughout paragraph (c). This will clarify that employees do not remain covered by subpart D or chapter 75 procedures if they or their positions are moved into Schedules C or Policy/Career.
Paragraph (c)(7) extends subpart D to cover a competitive service employee who had competitive status at the time the employee's position was first listed involuntarily in the excepted service and who still occupies either that position or another position to which the employee was moved involuntarily. OPM proposes to modify this to apply to an employee who was in the competitive service at the time the position was first listed under only Schedule A or Schedule B of the excepted service and who is still in that position. This proposed change reflects the fact that, as explained above in section I(C)(3), employees whose positions are reclassified into a policy-influencing schedule do not retain chapter 75 adverse action procedures or MSPB appeals. However, employees moved into non-policymaking positions (
The April 2024 final rule amended the § 752.401(d)(2) exclusion for policy-influencing employees to only cover positions that satisfy the § 210.102 definition of policy-influencing, namely political appointments. The rule also inserted language throughout paragraph (d)(2) providing that it does not cover positions if “the incumbent was moved involuntarily to such a position after accruing rights as delineated in paragraph (c) of this section.” OPM proposes to remove both the reference to § 210.102 and this language covering involuntary moves. Paragraph (d)(2) would instead state that employees in Schedules C or Policy/Career are exempted from subpart D's scope.
Additionally, OPM proposes to revise 5 CFR 752.401(c)(2)(ii) pertaining to 10 U.S.C. 1599e, which provided for a 2-year probationary period in the Department of Defense. This language has become obsolete as section 1599e was repealed, effective December 31, 2022, by Public Law 117-81, Section 1106(a)(1).
Section 752.405 covers MSPB appeals of actions taken under subpart D. OPM is proposing to amend § 752.405(a) to add at the end “Employees listed under § 752.401(d) of this subpart may not appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under this section, irrespective of whether they or their positions were previously covered by this subpart.” This expressly states what is implicit in the amendments OPM is proposing to § 752.401: employees in policy-influencing excepted service positions are categorically exempt from subpart D's coverage and concomitant MSPB appeals. This addition is meant to promote clarity in OPM's regulations.
OPM also proposes modifying 5 CFR part 212, subpart D, and Part 302, subpart F, to modify the procedures for moving positions into or between excepted service schedules. Specifically, OPM proposes to remove subpart F of part 302, which was created by the April 2024 final rule. OPM also proposes to amend part 212, subpart D to remove provisions inconsistent with the policies of Executive Order 14171, as well as to clarify that competitive service employees reclassified or transferred into an excepted service schedule do not remain in the competitive service but retain their competitive status.
OPM is proposing to revise 5 CFR part 212, subpart D, which governs the effect of an employee's competitive status on the employee's position. The April 2024 final rule modified 5 CFR 212.401(b) to provide that employees who were in the competitive service and had competitive status at the time their position was first listed under Schedule A, B, or C, or any excepted schedule created after May 9, 2024, or who were otherwise moved involuntarily to a position in the excepted service, remain in the competitive service for the purposes of competitive status and any accrued adverse action appeals while the employee occupies that position, or any other position to which the employee is moved involuntarily. This language was meant to extend chapter 75 coverage to positions moved into a policy-influencing excepted service schedule.
OPM is proposing to remove this language. In its place OPM proposes a new paragraph (b) that provides that an employee who has competitive status at the time their position is first listed in an excepted service schedule, or who is involuntarily transferred to a position in the excepted service, is not in the competitive service for any purpose but shall retain competitive status for as long as they continue to occupy such position.
These changes align OPM regulations with the 5 U.S.C. 2102 and 2103 statutory definitions of the competitive and excepted services. Title 5 defines a position's location in the excepted or competitive service solely with regard to the nature and classification of the position, without regard to an
The proposed amendments further reflect the fact, discussed in section I(C)(3), that 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2) categorically excludes employees in positions the President has placed in the excepted service and determined are policy-influencing. OPM does not have statutory authority to extend chapter 75 to cover such employees. Nothing in title 5 provides for positions to have a hybrid competitive-excepted status. While OPM previously pointed to provisions in the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, as construed by the D.C. Circuit in
Moreover, even if the current § 212.401(b) were permissible under title 5 and the civil service rules, retaining it would undermine the President's policies for increasing accountability in policy-influencing positions. OPM would accordingly propose these changes regardless to support the President's policies.
At the same time, OPM's proposed new § 212.401(b) would provide that employees with competitive status whose positions are listed in or who are involuntarily transferred into the excepted service retain their competitive status. This would allow them to retain their basic eligibility for noncompetitive assignment to a competitive position. This proposal recognizes that employees hired on a competitive basis have met the standards necessary for appointment to competitive positions, and that the President's decision to move them or their position into the excepted service says little about their underlying qualifications.
Allowing employees in excepted service positions to retain their competitive status is consistent with OPM's statutory authorities. Title 5 provides that an individual may be appointed in the competitive service only if he has passed an examination or is specifically exempted from examination by the civil service rules.
The April 2024 rulemaking added a new subpart F to Part 302 prescribing procedures for moving positions into or between excepted service schedules. OPM is proposing to remove subpart F in its entirety.
5 CFR 302.601 sets forth the scope of subpart F. It applies to any situation where an agency moves a position from the competitive to the excepted service, or between excepted service schedules. It also applies any time that an employee covered by chapter 75 procedures is moved involuntarily to any position not covered by chapter 75.
Section 302.602 prescribes basic requirements for such moves or transfers. It provides that if a directive from the President, Congress, or OPM explicitly delineates the specific positions or employees that will be moved, the agency need only list the positions or employees moved in accordance with that directive and their location within the organization and provide that list to OPM.
If the directive requires the agency to select the positions or employees to be moved pursuant to criteria articulated in the directive, then the agency must provide OPM with a list of the positions or employees to be moved in accordance with those criteria, denote their location in the organization, and explain, upon request from OPM, why the agency believes they met those criteria. If the directive confers discretion on the agency to establish criteria for identifying the positions or employees to be covered then the agency must also provide OPM with the objective criteria to be used and an explanation of how these criteria are relevant.
Section 302.602 also requires agencies to (1) identify the types, numbers, and locations of employees or positions that the agency proposes to move into the excepted service; (2) document the basis for their determination that movement of the employees or positions is consistent with the standards set forth by the President, Congress, OPM, or their designees, as applicable; (3) obtain certification from the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) that the documentation is sufficient and movement of the employees or positions is both consistent with the prescribed standards and with merit system principles; (4) submit the CHCO certification and supporting documentation to OPM before using the excepted service authority; (5) for exceptions effectuated by the President or OPM, list positions in the excepted service only after receiving written approval from the OPM director; and (6) for exceptions created by the President or OPM, initiate any hiring actions only after OPM publishes such authorization in the
Section 302.602(c) also stipulates that, if a position being moved to the excepted service is encumbered, the agency must provide affected employees 30 days advanced written notice. If the movement is involuntary, the agency's notice must state employees will remain covered by chapter 43 and 75 procedures and MSPB appeals. Under 302.603(d) the same requirements apply to the involuntary movement of employees.
Section 302.603 provides MSPB appeals for competitive service employees whose positions are placed in the excepted service or who are otherwise moved involuntarily to the excepted service. It also gives MSPB appeals to excepted service employees whose positions are placed into a different excepted schedule or are otherwise involuntarily transferred into a different excepted service position. Such appeals apply whenever an agency asserts the move or transfer would exclude the employee from chapter 43 or 75 procedures and subsequent appeals. Under the regulations MSPB can order the agency to nonetheless extend chapter 43 or 75 procedures to such employees. Employees can also appeal if they allege any facially voluntary moves were in fact involuntary.
OPM is now proposing to remove subpart F because it no longer remains in effect. OPM issued subpart F using delegated presidential authority.
This presidential directive is self-executing, taking precedence over
Even if OPM had discretion to keep subpart F in effect, OPM would still propose removing it. OPM would do so for several reasons. First, subpart F was expressly adopted as part of the prior administration's policy of preventing the reinstatement of Executive Order 13957. Federal policy has changed with the election of a new President. So OPM would still propose removing subpart F to avoid impeding administration policy.
Second, the Opinion Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President “may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.”
Third, 5 U.S.C. 3302 gives the President primary responsibility for placing positions in the excepted or competitive services. OPM only excepts positions using delegated Presidential authority. Executive Order 14171 set up a process for the President to place positions in Schedule Policy/Career based upon recommendations from OPM and agency heads. Even if that order had not directly overridden subpart F, it would be inconsistent with this hierarchy of authority for OPM to use delegated Presidential authority to purport to limit the President's direct exercise of section 3302 authority. OPM reports to the President, not vice versa. OPM regulations issued using delegated Presidential authority should not impede Presidential authority.
Fourth, OPM regulations cannot create an entitlement to adverse action procedures that is denied by statute. Subpart F requires agencies to notify employees moved or otherwise involuntarily transferred into Schedule F that they remain covered by chapter 43 and 75 procedures and appeals. It also authorizes MSPB to order agencies to continue to apply such procedures, and to order agencies to correct any deficient notifications.
However, as discussed in section I(C)(3), employees reclassified or transferred into a policy-influencing excepted service position are out of scope for chapter 75 as a matter of law. Section 7511(b)(2) of 5 U.S.C. precludes chapter 75 coverage and subsequent MSPB appeals in Schedule Policy/Career, no matter what notices agencies may have provided. While OPM can give MSPB jurisdiction to hear some appeals, it cannot do so in the face of a conflicting statutory mandate. Nor can MSPB require agencies to apply chapter 75 procedures to employees statutorily excluded from that chapter's coverage.
Fifth, subpart F partially transfers decisional authority over which positions can go into Schedule Policy/Career from the President to subordinate officers. Section 302.602(b)(2) would require agency CHCOs to certify movement of positions into Schedule Policy/Career. Many CHCOs are career employees. Executive orders 13957 and 14171 have proven controversial in the civil service. Some CHCOs may be unwilling to issue certifications necessary to transfer positions into Schedule Policy/Career, even if the President directs the move. This could have the effect of functionally transferring to career CHCOs the authority to except positions that 5 U.S.C. 3302 vests in the President.
Similarly, § 302.603 authorizes MSPB appeals over movements or transfers into Schedule Policy/Career. OPM previously noted “that an individual may choose to assert in any appeal to the MSPB that the agency committed procedural error, if applicable, by failing to act in accordance with the procedural requirements of § 302.602 while effecting any placement from the competitive service into the excepted service or from the excepted service to a different schedule of the excepted service.”
Subpart F was added as part of the prior administration's effort to stymie the reintroduction of anything like Schedule F. OPM now believes that, with the change in administration and administration policy, control over the federal workforce should remain with the official constitutionally and statutorily vested with that authority—the President. OPM does not believe its regulations should give subordinate agency officials the functional ability to countermand a Presidential directive to place positions in Schedule Policy/Career. Even if the President had not directly rendered subpart F inoperative, OPM would propose these changes to restore authority to the official constitutionally vested with it and democratically accountable to the American people.
Sixth, requiring adherence to externally enforceable procedural steps with subsequent MSPB appeals seems likely to produce protracted litigation. Such litigation would create confusion about whether positions have been moved into Schedule Policy/Career and whether incumbents in those positions retain adverse action appeals. The government benefits from certainty and dispatch about position classifications and the scope of removal restrictions. Additional bureaucracy and extended litigation do not promote the efficiency of the federal service. That is particularly true when the appeals in question were overtly adopted to frustrate a Presidential priority.
OPM notes that agencies will nonetheless be required to provide justification to OPM for Schedule Policy/Career recommendations. Executive Order 13957 requires each agency to give OPM a written explanation documenting the basis for the agency heads' determination that positions should be placed in Schedule
OPM proposes to revise the authority citations for parts 210, 212, 213, 302, and 752 to comply with 1 CFR part 21, subpart B. OPM also proposes to update the citations by adding current authorities and removing obsolete citations.
Executive Order 13957, as amended, now directs OPM to provide for the application of Civil Service Rule 6.3(a) to Schedule Policy/Career positions.
Part 302 prescribes procedures governing excepted service hiring, and 5 CFR 302.101(c) lists exemptions from these procedures. For example, these exemptions include attorneys and positions included in Schedule A for which OPM agrees with the agency that the positions should be excluded.
With limited exceptions, individuals employed in the excepted service do not acquire competitive status based on that employment. By definition, competitive status means an individual's basic eligibility for noncompetitive assignment to a competitive position. An individual with competitive status may be, without open competitive examination, reinstated, transferred, promoted, reassigned, or demoted, subject to conditions prescribed by the Civil Service rules and regulations. One of those exceptions is found in 5 CFR 6.3, which allows OPM to “prescribe conditions under which excepted positions may be filled in the same manner as competitive positions are filled and conditions under which persons so appointed may acquire a competitive status . . . .” Moreover, competitive service employees whose positions are first listed under Schedules A, B, and C retain their competitive status. To create consistency in the treatment of individuals who will be transferred from the competitive service into Schedule Policy/Career positions and individuals who will be appointed to Schedule Policy/Career positions, OPM is exercising its discretion to grant competitive status to individuals appointed to Schedule Policy/Career positions after 1 year of service.
Specifically, OPM is proposing to revise paragraph (c), which currently allows OPM to specify that individuals in certain positions in the excepted service may acquire competitive status as provided in part 315. Part 315 only allows for competitive status when employed in a permanent appointment in the competitive service; however, Civil Service Rule 6.3(a) provides broader authority to OPM to provide for competitive status. Because OPM is proposing to allow individuals in Schedule Policy/Career to acquire competitive status even though Schedule Policy/Career positions are in the excepted service, OPM is proposing conforming changes to paragraph (c) to remove the part 315 limitation.
OPM is also proposing to add a paragraph (d) to 5 CFR 302.102 that would provide that a position's movement into Schedule Policy/Career will not affect how it is filled. (Alternatively, OPM may place this provision at 213.3501.) More specifically, the regulations would provide that agencies make appointments to positions in Schedule Policy/Career in the same manner as to positions in the competitive service, unless such positions would, but for their placement in Schedule Policy/Career, be listed in another excepted service schedule. Conversely, appointments to positions in Schedule Policy/Career that would be listed in another excepted service schedule, but for their placement in Schedule Policy/Career, would be filled using the provisions that would otherwise apply to that schedule.
For example, under this proposal agencies can still use excepted service procedures to hire applicants with severe disabilities into Policy/Career positions. Such positions would otherwise be placed in Schedule A, so agencies may continue to use excepted service procedures, including the exemption from appointment procedures in 302.101(c)(11). Similarly, attorney positions would continue to be exempted from part 302 appointment procedures in accordance with 302.101(c)(8). OPM-granted governmentwide or agency-specific Schedule A authorities for which part 302 appointment procedures apply also would continue to be subject to the part 302 appointment procedures. Agencies would continue to apply competitive service hiring procedures to positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career from the competitive service.
Commentators had expressed concerns that Executive Order 13957 was an attempt to replace merit hiring with patronage appointments. Executive Order 14171 and the regulations OPM is proposing make clear those concerns are meritless.
OPM expressed serious concerns with Executive Order 13957 during the prior rulemaking. Upon further consideration OPM now concludes those concerns were unwarranted. This section provides an explanation of why OPM has changed its views and now believes Schedule Policy/Career—the successor to Schedule F—would improve the civil service.
Both OPM and commenters expressed significant concern that Executive Order 13957 was an attempt to resurrect the patronage or “spoils” system. In this view, the order was a vehicle to convert tens of thousands of policy-influencing career positions into political appointments. The President would then replace “qualified” career employees en masse with “unqualified” political loyalists. OPM and commentators feared that this would reduce “expertise” within the federal workforce, reduce agencies' administrative capacity, and degrade effective government operations.
OPM and commentators also expressed concerns such a shift would hurt agency recruitment and retention, as experienced professionals would be less likely to seek or remain in jobs where political affiliation was perceived to be a condition of employment.
Upon further review, and in consideration of the policies set out in Executive Order 14171, OPM has concluded that these fears were misplaced. This order rejects the spoils system and seeks to return to the efficient, merit-based system enacted by the Pendleton Act. Nothing in the order disturbs merit hiring of career employees. It also contains safeguards to prevent patronage, such as forbidding the White House office in charge of vetting political positions from being involved with selecting Schedule Policy/Career appointees.
Section 6 of Executive Order 13957, as amended, further prohibits considering political affiliation when making Policy/Career appointments. It also expressly provides that Policy/Career employees do not have to personally support President Trump or his policies. Contrary to fears of a return to the spoils system, the President expressly forbid political loyalty tests for Policy/Career employees. At the same time the President made clear that career employees who fail to faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability have failed to perform their basic work responsibilities and will be removed.
Executive Order 14171's purpose is to increase policy-influencing employees' accountability within the Executive Branch, thereby facilitating effective Presidential management of and reducing insubordination and corruption in the civil service. That purpose is not served by, and in fact would be undermined by, a return to patronage practices that undermine agency capacity.
OPM's prior analysis and comments were predicated on the assumption that Executive Order 13957 was an effort to impose a political loyalty test on employees in policy-influencing positions. Executive Order 14171 rejected that approach, and those concerns are inapposite. The order instead provides that Schedule Policy/Career jobs are open to employees of any political persuasion so long as they perform well and faithfully implement the President's agenda to the best of their abilities. This is the opposite of the patronage system, which subjected employees to dismissal upon a Presidential transition based on political affiliation alone, irrespective of their performance.
In the 2024 final rule OPM recognized that Executive Order 13957 contained similar prohibitions on prohibited personnel practices but explained it would be difficult for employees to personally enforce those protections.
OPM notes that President Trump has strong motivation to enforce section 6's prohibition on patronage. As OPM and commentators previously noted, hiring less qualified personnel reduces Federal administrative capacity and efficiency. Replacing experienced career employees who are faithfully implementing Presidential directives with inexperienced political appointees would make it significantly more difficult for him to carry out his agenda.
For example, Executive Order 13957, as amended, contemplates that Schedule Policy/Career would apply to agency employees with responsibility for drafting regulations and guidance. These are complex tasks that require considerable experience with the subject matter and technical procedures. Few newly hired employees—career or noncareer—can do these jobs effectively. Generally dismissing career regulation drafters who do not share the President's political affiliation, even if they would otherwise faithfully and expeditiously draft rules advancing his policies, would cripple agencies' ability to engage in notice and comment rulemaking. The President accordingly has strong motivation to prevent agencies from treating regulation-drafting positions as patronage plums instead of merit positions. It may be necessary to dismiss some regulation drafters who slow-walk the production of rules they personally oppose or otherwise insert partisanship into the performance of their duties. But a President who wants agencies to implement his policies has strong incentives not to dismiss experienced regulation writers who are performing timely and quality work, no matter their personal political affiliation.
OPM also notes that the President and his appointees have additional incentives to maintain a career workforce that contains a diversity of views and opinions. Having intellectually diverse career staff analyze and critique proposed policies can help identify blind spots and problems during the policy-making process that might not be apparent to a team that shared the same political perspective. Career staff critiques, especially those coming from a political perspective that differs from political appointees, ultimately strengthens policymaking and produces better agency decisions. Even some of the strongest advocates for Executive Order 13957 have reported that Trump Administration policymakers found career staff policy criticism or “red teaming” highly valuable.
If some officials nonetheless treat Schedule Policy/Career positions as noncareer positions OPM can help the President fix that problem when it arises. OPM will be heavily involved in the implementation of Schedule Policy/Career. If necessary, OPM can recommend additional measures to prevent abuses. But currently hypothetical concerns that agency personnel will ignore a Presidential directive are not grounds for failing to implement an executive order.
In the prior rulemaking some commentators expressed, and OPM broadly agreed with, a related but distinct, concern—that the prior Schedule F would strengthen the Federal workforce's accountability and responsiveness to the President, and this is a negative. For example, one commenter argued that the features of the “civil service that frustrate its critics—fealty to Congressional programs, dedication to government institutions, consideration of the public interest, and a mission broader than simply serving political appointees—are core components of the system established by an elected Congress almost 150 years ago.”
Upon further review, OPM now disagrees with these views. America was founded on the principle of government by consent of the governed. The Government's power flows from the American people, and the Constitution in turn holds those who exercise that power accountable to the people. Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests the Federal Government's executive power in the President. To discharge his responsibilities under Article II the President necessarily delegates his executive power to subordinate officers and employees. Those officials must be accountable to the President, who in turn must account for their performance to the American people.
The Constitution contains multiple checks and balances to prevent the amassing of centralized power. It divides executive, legislative, and judicial power among three co-equal branches of government. Congress appropriates funds, creates agencies, and defines their powers. “An agency literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”
However, nothing in the Constitution contemplates insulating policy-influencing officials from Presidential supervision. Instead, as the Supreme Court has often emphasized, “lesser officers must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they wield.”
Bureaucratic autonomy undercuts the federal government's accountability to the American people. If voters do not like how the President is executing the law, they can elect a new one at the next election. Partisan control of the White House has changed in four of the past five presidential elections. The threat of the opposing party winning the next election also shapes how Presidents exercise their authority.
However, career employees are by design unaccountable to the American people; they do not lose their jobs if a new President takes office. Insulating policy-influencing employees from accountability to the elected President accordingly insulates them from accountability to the American people. This enables career officials to exercise Federal power without a democratic mandate. This runs contrary to the founding principles of American government. OPM does not believe the civil service should function as an extra-constitutional and undemocratic constraint on presidential management of the executive branch. Checks and balances are instead provided through the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.
Several commentators in the prior rulemaking argued that Schedule F was unlawful. OPM explained it “took no position on whether Executive Order 13957 was based on legal error” and that the rulemaking was not premised on that conclusion.
OPM has reconsidered those views and now believes that Executive Orders 13957 and 14171 are squarely within the President's constitutional and statutory authority. Even some of those orders' strongest critics have come to the same conclusion. For example, a professor emeritus and former Dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland founded a working group to oppose Schedule F.
As discussed above, OPM believes that the policy-influencing terms encompass career positions and that employees moved into policy-influencing excepted service positions are no longer covered by chapter 75. OPM also believes that the President has authority to except positions from the competitive service for the purpose of excluding them from chapter 75 procedures and that doing so does not raise due process concerns. OPM also now recognizes that construing the CSRA to prohibit Schedule Policy/Career would raise serious constitutional concerns.
5 U.S.C. 3302 authorizes the President to prescribe rules governing the competitive service and to provide, as nearly as conditions of good administration warrant, for necessary exceptions from the competitive service.
Section 3302's text places no restrictions on the grounds for excepting positions from the competitive service. Those decisions are left to Presidential discretion, so long as he finds it necessary and warranted by conditions of good administration. If the President believes chapter 75 procedures are impeding his supervision of a particular position, then he may except it to bring it within the 7511(b)(2)(A) exception.
An examination of the section's history confirms that reading. Section 3302 of 5 U.S.C. is the modern codification of the provisions of section 2, Eighth of the Pendleton Act of 1883.
Congress reorganized and recodified title 5 in 1966.
OPM also now recognizes that section 3302's location within subchapter I of chapter 33 should not be construed as implicitly limiting the grounds for excepting positions from the competitive service. The title 5 recodification act provided that an “inference of a legislative construction is not to be drawn by reason of the location in the United States Code of a provision enacted by this Act or by reason of the caption or catchline thereof.”
The Supreme Court has also interpreted section 3302 to allow the President to except positions from the competitive service for the purpose of excluding them from chapter 75 procedures. The Court has found that “senior or policymaking positions in government may be excepted from the competitive service to ensure Presidential control, see 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(B), 3302, 7511(b)(2)”.
The text, history, and precedents governing section 3302 confirm the President can except positions from the competitive service to bring them within the scope of the 7511(b)(2)(A) exception.
In the prior rulemaking, OPM stated that tenured Federal employees are constitutionally entitled to due process before any dismissals and any new policies affecting them must still provide constitutional due process.
Commentators contended that this analysis was incomplete.
OPM rejected these comments and concluded that these cases did not eliminate constitutional concerns with Executive Order 13957. OPM reasoned that the cases commentators raised involved state legislation, not administrative procedures. OPM explained that “Federal appellate courts have held that rights conferred on state employees by legislative action can be revoked, but that revocation also requires legislative action.”
Upon further review OPM now concludes that it took too narrow a view of the term “legislative” as it is used in due process case law. It is settled precedent that individualized due process is not required when the government makes general policy (“legislative actions”) rather than makes individualized adjudications. The distinction between “legislative” and “adjudicative” actions depends on the character of the action—not which branch of government formally undertakes it.
Courts follow a three-part test for determining whether a governmental action is “legislative” or “adjudicative” for due process purposes: (1) does it apply to specific individuals or to unnamed and unspecified persons; (2) does the promulgating agency consider general facts or adjudicate a particular set of disputed facts; and (3) does the action determine policy issues or resolve specific disputes between particular parties?
For example, court orders setting minimum experience levels for trial attorneys who appear in court are “legislative” acts, notwithstanding the fact they were issued by the judicial branch. They applied to unnamed and unspecified persons, considered general facts, and determined policy issues. Thus, even though they prevented specific attorneys from practicing law before the courts, they were “legislative in nature” and did “not give rise to constitutional procedural due process requirements.”
This is why agency terminations through Reductions in Force (RIFs) raise no constitutional concerns. Although RIFs discharge tenured employees without providing individualized due process, they are “legislative” acts that apply to unspecified persons and flow from general policy decisions.
Executive branch reclassification of tenured employees into Schedule Policy/Career, and the concomitant exception from adverse action procedures and appeals, are straightforwardly legislative under this framework. Like RIFs, the reclassifications would apply to groups of positions as a class rather than to specific named individuals.
The Constitution does not require individualized due process before the President can promulgate general policies to move positions into Schedule Policy/Career.
Upon further reflection, OPM has also concluded that interpreting the CSRA to prevent the President from excepting incumbent policy-influencing employees from chapter 75 and MSPB appeals would raise significant constitutional concerns. The canon of constitutional avoidance calls for interpreting statutes to avoid serious constitutional issues. So even if the language of title 5 did not clearly authorize Executive Order 14171—and OPM believes it does—the canon of constitutional avoidance would require interpreting it to do so.
Article II of the Constitution vests the Federal Government's executive power in the President, who necessarily relies on his subordinates to aid in the exercise of his executive power. Presidential subordinates who exercise significant authority pursuant to law in continuing positions established by law are “Officers of the United States.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article II's vesting of executive power in the President generally authorizes him to supervise—and, if necessary, dismiss—constitutional officers. The Supreme Court has authorized only two limited exceptions to this general rule. Congress may restrict removals of principal officers who head “multimember expert agencies that do not wield substantial
The
However, the April 2024 final rule interpreted the CSRA to prevent the President from excluding tenured employees from chapter 75. This construction negates the court's second reason for finding civil service procedures constitutional. This interpretation creates at least one—and possibly two—significant constitutional conflicts when CSRA procedures apply to constitutional officers.
First, OPM's prior construction would constitutionally forbid applying chapter 75 to any constitutional officers with any substantive policymaking or administrative authority. In
Because the Supreme Court has not provided a definitive test for officer status, it is not clear how many officials this restriction covers. However, OPM follows the advice of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Drawing from Supreme Court decisions assessing officer status, OLC instructs agencies that constitutional offices are continuing positions within the Federal Government that exercise “significant authority” such as conducting enforcement activities to vindicate public rights.
For example, EEOC field offices are led by GS-15 Field Directors covered by chapter 75. EEOC field offices are agency satellite offices within the jurisdiction of larger EEOC district offices. Led by Field Directors, Field Offices perform a portion of the work assigned to the larger district office.
Other agency satellite offices are similarly led by General Schedule employees who appear to satisfy the constitutional test for inferior officers. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regional Area Directors occupy GS-14 positions covered by chapter 75.
Cataloguing every position covered by chapter 75 that is likely an inferior office with substantive administrative or policymaking responsibilities is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, applying the “significant authority” test set out in the Supreme Court's decisions as well as OLC's advice, OPM recognizes that there are a significant number of such positions in absolute terms, even though they represent a small proportion of the total Federal workforce.
Second, if Congress can constitutionally insulate the heads of multi-member independent agencies from Presidential dismissal, OPM's prior construction means chapter 75 cannot be constitutionally applied to any inferior officers in those agencies. Congress has sought to restrict the President's authority to dismiss the heads of many independent agencies by limiting the grounds for removal,
It is difficult to determine precisely how many inferior officers work in independent agencies and are covered by chapter 75. At a minimum, however, this construction would constitutionally invalidate adverse action procedures for non-Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) administrative adjudicators.
The Administrative Conference of the United States has identified over two-dozen multimember independent agencies whose heads have explicit statutory for-cause removal restrictions.
Assuming that courts find tenure protections for independent agencies are enforceable, construing the CSRA to prevent the President from excepting incumbent employees from chapter 75 would constitutionally invalidate tenure protections for these non-ALJ adjudicators (as well as all other inferior officers in these agencies). Under
The interpretation of the CSRA the 2024 final rule advanced thus creates significant conflicts between chapter 75 and constitutional requirements for presidential supervision of inferior officers. If the President cannot except inferior officers with substantive policymaking or administrative authority from chapter 75, then
The “canon of constitutional avoidance” is one of the fundamental canons of statutory interpretation. As the Supreme Court has often explained, “[w]hen a serious doubt is raised about the constitutionality of an act of Congress, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.”
Of relevance to this rulemaking, the Supreme Court has applied the canon of constitutional avoidance to separation of powers cases where an act of Congress threatens to interfere with the President's constitutional responsibilities. For example, in
For the reasons discussed above OPM believes the best reading of title 5 and the CSRA is that the President can exclude policy-influencing career positions and the employees encumbering them from chapter 75 procedures. Moreover, adopting this interpretation avoids the formidable constitutional difficulties that would be raised by construing the CSRA to restrict the President's ability to remove many inferior officers with important policymaking or administrative responsibilities. The canon of constitutional avoidance consequently requires construing the CSRA to allow the President to exclude incumbent policy-influencing employees from chapter 75. Courts resolve statutory ambiguities against creating unnecessary constitutional conflicts.
Commenters raised these constitutional concerns during the prior rulemaking. In the final rule OPM gave several reasons for rejecting these concerns. Upon further consideration, OPM has concluded that the justifications it gave for rejecting these constitutional objections were poorly reasoned.
OPM explained that the commenters were mistaken to assert that many senior career officials are inferior officers covered by the
OPM stressed that the
OPM similarly argued that
The President, acting in coordination with OPM, can exclude any agency or agency subunit from SES adverse action procedures. Former SES members in those agencies would then fall under chapter 75. The President could then invoke section 7511(b)(2) to exclude the former SES positions from chapter 75, as positions that qualify for SES status are definitionally policy-making or policy-determining. Consequently, although removing them would take several procedural steps, SES members' adverse action appeals effectively exist at the President's sufferance. The Court recognized this flexibility and held this framework constitutionally unproblematic. The Supreme Court did not suggest that SES adverse action procedures the President could not bypass would be constitutionally acceptable.
OPM previously pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in
Upon further review, OPM now recognizes that the narrow remedy the Supreme Court crafted in
In the April 2024 final rule OPM stated that inferior officer status, even where it applies, does not generally require employees to be at-will.
The 2024 final rule also argued that the removal restrictions at issue in
Upon further review, OPM has concluded this was a poor reading of
Justice Breyer's dissent criticized the majority for not grounding its holding on the narrow grounds for dismissing PCAOB members. He explained that the Court had “avoid[ed] so narrow a holding in favor of a broad, basically mechanical rule” and that “the only characteristic of the relationship . . . that the Court apparently deems relevant is that the relationship includes two layers of for-cause removal.”
Construing the CSRA to prevent the President from exempting policy-influencing officers from chapter 75 procedures would create significant conflicts with baseline constitutional requirements for Presidential supervision of the executive branch. The 2024 final rule rejected these concerns, but further consideration has persuaded OPM they are serious and meritorious. OPM believes that the best construction of the CSRA is one that avoids these constitutional issues.
OPM also previously reasoned it would be inappropriate to construe title 5 to allow the President to except positions from chapter 75 because “the Supreme Court has cautioned against using vague statutory provisions to alter `fundamental details of a regulatory scheme' ”.
Upon further review, OPM has determined this objection is misplaced. Congress clearly authorized the President to reclassify employees and exclude them from chapter 75 procedures.
Commenters in the prior rulemaking also argued that Schedule F was a novel and thus impermissible use of 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2). But Schedule F was far from novel. It sought to restore the removal procedures that prevailed for the vast majority of American history. The Supreme Court has recognized that the 7511(b)(2) exception can be used to strengthen accountability in policymaking positions, and as previously discussed, found the authority to do so constitutionally significant.
In the April 2024 final rule OPM concluded that implementing Executive Order 13957 would undermine the government's performance along several dimensions. Upon further consideration OPM now concludes those concerns were misplaced. OPM now believes that implementing E.O. 14171 would improve the Federal Government's performance and accountability to the American people for several reasons.
In both OPM's notice of proposed rulemaking and the 2024 final rule, OPM expressed concerns that Executive Order 13957 would undermine agency recruitment and retention efforts. OPM feared it would eliminate a competitive advantage in federal hiring and recruitment, and that fear of job loss or reprisal or politicization would reduce the attractiveness of Federal jobs.
OPM believes that the new Schedule Policy/Career will not create substantive recruitment and retention concerns or service disruption. To the extent that assessment is mistaken, however, OPM believes benefits of Schedule Policy/Career outweigh any such potential costs.
Many of OPM's previously expressed concerns were related to the belief that Executive Order 13957 was an attempt to politicize career positions and create a new de facto schedule for political appointees. Such a proposal would naturally lead to mass dismissals of incumbent employees who did not share political affiliation with the President of the day. It would also lead to recruitment concerns, as many prospective employees would not be interested in what are by definition short-term political positions. However, as discussed in section III(A), Executive Order 14171 rejected that approach. The order clarifies that Schedule Policy/Career positions are definitionally career—not political—appointments and requires filling them using standard career hiring procedures. The order also provides that political loyalty to the President must not be a prerequisite of holding Schedule Policy/Career positions and requires agencies to establish procedures to ensure compliance with its directive, to the extent these are not already in place.
Schedule Policy/Career positions remain career positions, and employees who perform well and faithfully implement the President's agenda to the best of their ability have little reason to fear dismissal based on non-merit factors. Firing experienced policy-influencing employees who are helping advance his policy agenda would undermine the President's ability to implement that agenda. The President has unsurprisingly forbidden agencies from doing so. Dismissals of policy-influencing career employees, to the extent they occur, would instead be concentrated among poor performers, corrupt employees, or those who injected partisanship into the performance of their duties. While dismissing such employees may create some disruption, over the long-term the government benefits from employing a high-performing and ethical workforce that understands that democracy requires subordinating their personal policy preferences to those of the voters. Consequently, OPM expects Schedule Policy/Career would not bring about the destabilizing separations commenters and OPM previously feared would occur under the proposed Schedule F, nor would it necessarily lead to losses of institutional knowledge or reduced employee investment in skills within agencies.
OPM also does not believe that Schedule Policy/Career would impair Federal recruitment and hiring efforts. Employees considering whether to apply for a Policy/Career position would know that they will be valued for their knowledge, skills, and abilities and evaluated based on merit. They would also be filling long-term positions that would not typically disappear upon a change in administration. OPM also notes that systematically retaining poor performers, or those who engage in serious misconduct such as that which occurred at the FDIC, harms employee morale and can hurt recruitment and retention.
It is true that adverse action procedures and appeals give Federal employees greater job security than exist in most other jobs. To the extent that workers value this job security, Schedule Policy/Career's removal of adverse action procedures would reduce the relative value of the total Federal compensation package. However, OPM no longer believes that this change will significantly impair federal recruitment or hiring.
Even excluding the value of job security, the Federal Government offers a more generous benefits package than most comparable private-sector employers. For example, the Federal Government provides its employees with both defined benefit and defined contribution retirement plans. Very few private employers offer comparably generous retirement benefits. As a result, the Government generally offers Federal employees a benefits package that exceeds what they could expect to earn elsewhere. Congressional Budget Office data shows that Federal employees with a bachelor's degree receive $31.70 an hour in non-wage benefits, while comparable private-sector workers receive only $22.00 an hour in non-wage benefits. For employees with a Master's degree, those figures are $33.50 and $26.20 an hour in the Federal and private sectors, respectively.
In the 2024 rule OPM expressed concerns that Executive Order 13957 could impede agencies' ability to hire scientific and technical personnel, particularly for cybersecurity positions.
OPM does not believe including technical positions in Schedule Policy/Career would hurt agency recruitment or retention efforts. But, after reviewing E.O. 14171, OPM also sees little likelihood that purely technical positions like cybersecurity personnel would move into Schedule Policy/Career. This schedule applies to career employees who can shape agency policy through the performance of their duties. That does not generally describe cybersecurity staff, auditors, or other highly technical positions. Neither section 5 of Executive Order 13957, as amended, nor OPM's guidance tells agencies to consider recommending such positions. To the extent that the policy-influencing terms could be seen as encompassing such technical positions, and agencies recommend putting cybersecurity staff into Schedule Policy/Career, OPM does not plan on making that recommendation to the President. Schedule Policy/Career is not meant for line cybersecurity or other technical employees. It is intended for employees whose work directly influences agency policy.
Finally, even if OPM believed that Schedule Policy/Career would impair agency recruitment and retention efforts, such costs must be considered alongside the benefits discussed above. The President has determined that these benefits outweigh the costs. Constitutionally and statutorily, the President is the individual authorized to weigh those policy costs and benefits and decide which course of action to pursue. The President has determined that the challenges discussed in section I(C) above necessitate creating Schedule Policy/Career. It is OPM's responsibility to assist the President in the carrying out of his duties, not vice versa. Consequently, even if OPM were not independently persuaded that the benefits of Schedule Policy/Career outweigh the costs—and OPM is—the office would defer to a Presidential judgement on the matter and adopt the same conclusion.
In the 2024 final rule OPM stated that it believed Executive Order 13957 was poorly designed as an effort to meaningfully improve performance management or allow managers to more effectively address performance issues because the characteristics of an employees' job—including whether the employee works on policy—has nothing to do with their performance. OPM reasoned that because Executive Order 13957 sought to streamline terminations based on the type of work that an employee performs, not based on how well they employee performs, it was difficult to understand how Schedule F would help address poor performance.
OPM also asserted that an executive order exempting employees from the scope of chapter 43 and 75 procedures would not effectively address the complexity of the various remedial schemes Congress has created. For example, Schedule F would not prevent a particular employee from lodging a complaint of unlawful discrimination under the various civil rights statutes; would not stop administrative judges of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from presiding over discovery in relation to such complaints and adjudicating them; and may result in decisions adverse to managers that will then be non-reviewable in a Federal court. OPM also argued that excepting individuals from adverse action procedures may lead to them attempting to file constitutional claims in Federal district courts.
Upon further review, OPM has concluded that these concerns are not a reason to avoid implementing Schedule Policy/Career. Neither Executive Order 13957 nor Executive Order 14171 claimed to solve performance management challenges across the entire Federal workforce. Instead, they explained that poor performance by policy-influencing employees is especially problematic because they shape how the agency itself executes its mission. So, while OPM agrees with the fact that an employee encumbers a policy-influencing position says nothing about their individual performance, OPM now recognizes that it says a lot about the ramifications if they perform poorly. As explained in section I(C)(2)(i), OPM now also acknowledges that chapter 43 and 75 procedures make it difficult for supervisors to effectively address poor performance or misconduct. The President has determined, and OPM agrees, that heightened performance accountability is necessary in policy-influencing positions. Executive Order 13957 is not intended to address all performance management across the entire federal workforce, but to address the serious consequences of poor performance by the subset of the workforce in policy-influencing positions.
While it is true that policy-influencing employees could still file Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, and such complaints could increase as a result, OPM believes this will not eliminate the benefits of Schedule Policy/Career. For one, EEO complaints are generally limited to charges of unlawful discrimination. Terminations for misconduct or poor performance are out-of-scope for EEO appeals unless they are also discriminatory. OPM believes that such discriminatory terminations would be rare and that employees would have difficulty successfully claiming warranted terminations were pretextual. Second, OPM notes that while agencies cannot generally appeal decisions by an EEO administrative judge to federal court, they can appeal EEOC administrative decisions, after issuing a final order not fully implementing a decision, to the full Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
With respect to appeals to district court, binding Supreme Court precedent holds that the CSRA is the exclusive remedial statutory framework for adverse action appeals and judicial review.
OPM previously concluded that several groups had settled expectations or reliance interests in maintaining the scope of chapter 43 and 75 procedures, and that these interests warranted issuing the final rule. These groups included tenured federal employees, who have taken career jobs and invested in agency-specific expertise with the expectation that they would possess adverse action procedural and appeal rights.
Upon further review OPM has concluded that the concerns that motivated these reliance interests are largely misplaced, and to the extent they exist these reliance interests are outweighed by the policy benefits of the proposed rule. As discussed in section III(A) above, Executive Order 13957 is not intended to facilitate—and in fact expressly prohibits—converting career positions into political appointments. Schedule Policy/Career positions will be filled using the same nonpartisan procedures that apply to the rest of the civil service. The civil service will remain professional, non-partisan, and effective under this proposed rule; the rule would simply strengthen policy-influencing appointees' accountability to the President whose power they wield.
Many Federal career employees accepted their positions in the expectation they would possess adverse action procedural and appeal rights and the significant job security they entail. They invested in agency-specific expertise in the expectation their tenure would last beyond the four or eight years of a Presidential administration. Placing these employees in Schedule Policy/Career makes them functionally at-will, a significant change to their settled expectations. However, OPM believes that the prejudice to such employee reliance interests is small. Even if it were not, the policy benefits to the executive branch would outweigh them.
Employees who faithfully perform their jobs to the best of their ability have little to fear from Schedule Policy/Career. The order expressly prohibits discrimination based on political affiliation, and agencies have strong incentives not to dismiss employees who are competently performing their assigned duties. Doing so would undermine their ability to complete their mission. Employees should be assumed to understand their performance expectations when they take their jobs. Merit Principle Four requires employees to maintain high standards of integrity and conduct, and Merit Principle Six directs agencies to separate employees who do not improve inadequate performance.
Further, OPM has concluded that the harms identified in section I outweigh any reliance interests employees in policy-influencing positions may possess. Poor performance, misconduct, corruption, and career employees injecting partisanship into the performance of their official duties are serious problems that undermine the efficiency and integrity of the service. Democracy depends on a nonpartisan civil service in which career employees effectively and faithfully implement the law and the policies of the elected President to the best of their ability. In our system of government, any reliance interests by policy-influencing career employees on the availability of adverse action procedures and appeals should be subordinate to the necessity of a competent, ethical, and democratically accountable government.
Finally, the President has determined that the harms discussed in section I outweigh any reliance interests in the status quo. The President is the individual statutorily and constitutionally vested with authority to make that determination. Even if OPM were not independently convinced of that fact—and it is—OPM would defer to a Presidential determination weighing the costs and benefits of prospective changes to the civil service rules and regulations.
The President has determined, and OPM independently agrees, that implementing Executive Order 14171 and effectuating Schedule Policy/Career is necessary to improve executive branch operations. This proposed rule would assist in carrying out that policy. As discussed extensively throughout the preamble, adverse action procedures and appeals make it prohibitively difficult for agencies to remove employees for all but the worst performance and conduct. This has led to significant problems with serious misconduct and corruption going unaddressed in contravention of Merit Principle Four, agencies failing to separate persistent poor performers in violation of Merit Principle Six, and many employees injecting partisanship into their duties and seeking to advance their personal political agendas while on the job. These problems are particularly acute in policy-influencing positions. Moving policy-influencing positions into Schedule Policy/Career will remove procedural impediments to holding career officials accountable for their performance and conduct, while retaining their status as career employees appointed based on merit.
The principal provisions of the April 2024 final rule have also either been rendered inoperative or OPM has concluded they exceed its statutory authority. OPM believes it is inappropriate to maintain obsolete or unlawful regulatory provisions.
An alternative to this rulemaking is to not issue a regulation while increasing training for managers and supervisors in how to use chapter 43 and 75 procedures. OPM has concluded this is not a viable option. Prior attempts to address the management challenges created by adverse action procedures and appeals through better use of the existing framework have failed. MSPB research shows that only two-fifths of Federal supervisors are confident they could remove an employee for serious misconduct, and just one quarter are confident they could remove an employee for poor performance.
Furthermore, OPM is statutorily tasked with executing, administering, and enforcing the civil service rules and regulations of the President.
Relatedly, Executive Order 14171 rendered several provisions of the 2024 final rule inoperative and without effect. Subpart F of part 302 and § 210.102(b)(3) and (b)(4) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, no longer reflect the operative legal standards governing the federal workforce. As OPM explained in the 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking, retaining out-of-date information in a Government regulation can confuse agencies, managers, and employees and produce unintended outcomes. Human resources specialists or managers may inadvertently rely on these particular regulations.
For example, employees moved into Schedule Policy/Career who review OPM's § 210.102 definitions could be given the mistaken impression that they have been converted into political appointees because those regulations state policy-influencing positions are only political appointments. However, Executive Order 13957, as amended, provides that employees in Schedule Policy/Career remain career appointees who can expect to keep their jobs across changes of administration as long as they perform effectively and faithfully implement each new administration's policies to the best of their ability. OPM believes it is important that its regulations promote knowledge of applicable civil service requirements, rather than spreading misinformation. Declining to update its regulations to reflect operative legal requirements is thus not a viable option.
OPM also considered implementing Executive Order 13957, as amended, but permitting incumbent employees who are reclassified or moved into Schedule Policy/Career to retain adverse action procedures and appeals. This would functionally make Schedule Policy/Career effective only for new hires, not existing employees, and would entirely sidestep concerns about impairing employee property interests in their jobs. OPM nonetheless concluded that this approach would not satisfy policy or legal concerns.
As a matter of policy, applying Schedule Policy/Career prospectively would negate most of the benefits of the rule during this presidential administration. The heightened accountability would apply only to new hires, who are a minority of the policy-influencing workforce. Most employees in policy-influencing positions would retain the adverse action procedures and appeals that substantially reduce their accountability to the President. Moreover, the most senior and experienced policy-influencing employees would remain exempt. These are the employees most important to cover under the rule, as poor performance or misconduct in the course of their duties has the largest impact on agency operations. Executive Order 13957, as amended, also requires agencies to include existing positions in their reviews.
As a matter of law, OPM has, as previously discussed, concluded that the 2024 rulemaking's additions to part 752, subpart D exceeded its statutory authority. Section 7511(b)(2) of 5 U.S.C. categorically excludes from chapter 75 procedures excepted service employees in policy-influencing positions. Nothing in the CSRA or elsewhere in title 5 provides for incumbents in such positions to retain adverse action procedures and appeals. Even if OPM wanted to extend adverse action procedures and appeals to employees moved into Schedule Policy/Career, it lacks statutory authority to do so. Retaining the subpart D amendments that purport to provide such adverse action procedures is thus not legally viable.
OPM is proposing these revisions to align the civil service regulations with operative legal requirements in Executive Order 13957, as amended. OPM believes that Executive Order 14171 rendered 5 CFR 210.102(b)(3) and (b)(4)'s definition of the policy-influencing terms inoperative, as well as 5 CFR part 302, subpart F. To the extent these rules as finalized simply comport OPM regulations to existing law, OPM believes that they will have a negligible impact on agencies. If OPM took no action these provisions of the civil service regulations would remain inoperative and without effect, but their presence would likely foster confusion in the federal workforce.
The main change that finalizing OPM's proposed regulations would cause is reversing the April 2024 final rule's amendments to Part 752, Subpart D. Under OPM's proposal employees reclassified or moved into Schedule Policy/Career positions would no longer remain covered by chapter 43 and 75 procedures or MSPB appeals. As previously discussed, OPM now believes that the changes made by the 2024 final rule exceeded its statutory authority and thus were unenforceable in any event. But, if a reviewing court held that the Subpart D regulations were a permissible discretionary policy choice, the proposed rescission of those regulations on policy grounds would increase policy-influencing employees' accountability to the President for their use of his executive power.
To the extent policy-influencing employees who are engaged in misconduct or performing poorly respond to this heightened accountability by improving their performance and conduct, the rule will generally improve agency operations irrespective of whether separations occur. However, agencies may find it necessary to use this authority to expeditiously separate some policy-influencing employees for poor performance or misconduct. Such removal proceedings would occur more quickly and at lower cost than under current procedures.
In the 2024 rulemaking OPM concluded that implementing Schedule F would adversely affect agency recruitment and retention efforts. As discussed above, OPM has reconsidered those concerns and finds them unpersuasive. They were predicated on the assumption that the policy-influencing exception to chapter 75 would be used to resurrect the spoils system and convert large numbers of career positions to short-term political appointments. Executive Order 13957, as amended, provides that Schedule Policy/Career positions remain career appointments, filled using civil service hiring procedures, and forbids agencies from filling them based on political contributions or affiliation. Accordingly, OPM concludes that Schedule Policy/Career will not incur the costs it previously expected of Schedule F.
Agencies, if they have not done so already, must also update their internal policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Executive Order 13957, as amended, and the amendments it made to the civil service rules. OPM conforming its regulations to the operative legal requirements will not impose additional costs on agencies. However, if OPM finalizes this rule, agencies would be required to update their internal policies and procedures to conform to the regulatory amendments this rule proposes to parts 432 and 752. Since these proposed revisions rescind existing regulatory requirements to follow adverse action procedures and appeals, the rule would not increase agency compliance costs beyond updating internal procedures. In addition, this rulemaking would relieve agencies of any litigation costs that would have arisen under the appeal rights created by 5 CFR 302.602.
The rule would affect the operations of more than 80 Federal agencies, ranging from cabinet-level departments to small independent agencies. The cost analysis to update policies and procedures assumes an average salary rate of Federal employees performing this work at the 2025 rate for a GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). As in the 2024 rulemaking, OPM assumes the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the
OPM estimates that the cost to comply with updating policies and procedures in the first year would require an average of 40 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $154.76 per hour. Upon publication of the final rule, this would result in first-year estimated costs of about $6,200 per agency, and about $495,000 governmentwide. There are ongoing costs associated with routinely reviewing and updating internal policies and procedures, but these costs will be incurred with or without the changes proposed here.
OPM estimates that approximately 50,000 positions would be moved or transferred into Schedule Policy/Career, about two percent of the Federal civilian workforce. The President may move a greater or smaller number of positions, but OPM believes this is a reasonable preliminary estimate. Of those positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career, OPM estimates 45,000 would be filled by incumbent employees and 5,000 would be vacancies filled by new hires upon the conclusion of the hiring freeze.
OPM estimates that the 45,000 incumbent employees whose positions are moved into Schedule Policy/Career will incur some costs associated with these changes in the first year following publications of this rule. These employees will need to familiarize themselves with the changes in their rights and responsibilities due to their shift into Schedule Policy/Career. Once they've familiarized themselves with these changes, they may reconsider their approach to various work assignments, for example to improve performance, and they may consider seeking alternative employment. OPM estimates these 45,000 employees will spend an average of four hours total familiarizing themselves with these changes and determining the best course of action to respond to these changes. OPM assumes that these employees have average salary equivalent to Federal employees at GS-15, step 5 in the Washington, DC locality ($189,950 annual locality rate and $91.02 hourly locality rate). OPM again assumes the total value of labor is 200 percent of the hourly wage rate, for a total average hourly cost of $182.04. This implies total first year costs along these lines of approximately $32.8 million. OPM estimates that new hires will incur no additional costs related to changes proposed here.
OPM requests public comment on the costs generated by this rule.
Excepting incumbent employees from chapter 43 and 75 procedures and MSPB appeals would reduce agency expenses during separations. Currently approximately one-quarter of one percent of tenured federal employees are dismissed for performance or conduct annually. Applying that percentage to the 45,000 incumbents estimated to be moved into Schedule Policy/Career implies that, in the absence of the rulemaking, agencies would be expected to separate 112 such employees annually.
OPM assumes that the exemption from chapter 75 will reduce the time agency supervisors and senior human resources staff must spend on each separation, prior to any administrative appeals, by a collective 600 hours, or 67,200 hours across all separations.
OPM further assumes that one-quarter of those separations would have otherwise resulted in initial MSPB appeals, or 28 appeals in total. OPM assumes supervisors and other senior agency HR personnel would spend 120 hours preparing evidence, providing testimony, and otherwise preparing for each such appeal, and agency attorneys would spend a further 100 hours reviewing evidence, preparing submissions, and arguing each appeal. OPM assumes initial MSPB decisions will be decided by MSPB administrative judges who are also paid at the GS-15, step 5 level, and they will spend 20 hours conducting each hearing and preparing their decision. This cost analysis again assumes an average hourly cost of $182.04 for supervisors and HR personnel, and the same labor cost for MSPB administrative judges. The attorneys are assumed to be GS-14, step 5 employees receiving Washington, DC locality pay ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate). With the total value of labor at 200 percent of hourly pay, the average hourly cost of an attorney is $154.76 per hour. This implies that agencies save $33,000 for each MSPB appeal forgone, for a total of $ 0.9 million in annual savings government-wide.
Thus, having these separations proceed through Schedule Policy/Career procedures instead of chapter 43 or 75 would be expected to save agencies approximately $13.2 million
However, OPM expects that there would be significant additional benefits from the proposed rule that are harder to quantify. Increased accountability would be expected to incentivize employees, where applicable, to improve problematic performance and conduct. This would produce large gains in agency efficiency, but OPM does not have a reasonable basis for estimating the magnitude of these gains and thus cannot quantify them across agencies. Similarly, higher employee performance and greater adherence to nonpartisan norms would be expected to reduce the time it takes agencies to conduct rulemakings. This would allow the public to experience the benefits of new rules sooner. OPM expects these benefits vastly outweigh the benefits of reducing HR costs during separations, but OPM does not have a reasonable basis for estimating how much faster rulemakings would proceed or the benefits that would accrue from faster implementation of rules that have not yet been proposed or finalized.
A final benefit of this rule is that it will align OPM regulations with the operative legal standards. This will promote greater agency and employee understanding of the procedures governing the civil service.
OPM requests public comment on the benefits generated by this rule.
OPM proposes that, if any of the provisions of this proposed rule as finalized is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, it shall be severable from its respective section(s) and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other dissimilar circumstances. In enforcing civil service protections and merit system principles, OPM will comply with all applicable legal requirements.
The Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
OPM has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 10, 1999), it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 1996).
This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995). Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
This regulatory action will not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Government employees.
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Government employees.
Decorations, Government employees.
Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR parts 210, 212, 213, 302, 432, 451, and 752 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14171, 90 FR 8625.
(b) Unless expressly provided otherwise by the Civil Service Rules, an employee who has competitive status at the time his or her position is first listed in an excepted service schedule, or who is involuntarily transferred to a position in the excepted service, is not in the competitive service for any purpose but shall retain competitive status as long as he or she continues to occupy such position.
5 U.S.C. 3161, 3301 and 3302. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14171, 90 FR 8625.
Sec. 213.101 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 2103.
Sec. 213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, 3307, 8337(h), and 8456; 38 U.S.C. ch. 43; Pub. L. 105-339, 112 Stat. 3182-83; E.O. 12125, 44 FR 16879, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 16879; E.O. 13124, 64 FR 31103, 3 CFR, 1999 Comp., p. 192; E.O. 13562, 75 FR 82585, 3 CFR, 2011 Comp., p. 291; Presidential Memorandum—Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process, 75 FR 27157 (May 11, 2010).
(a) In this chapter:
(1)
(2)
(b) In this part:
(1)
(2)
(d) The President may directly place positions in Schedule Policy/Career.
(a) Schedule A, B, C, D, and Policy/Career appointing authorities available for use by all agencies will be published as regulations in the
(b) Establishment and revocation of Schedule A, B, C, and Policy/Career appointing authorities applicable to a single agency shall be published monthly in the Notices section of the
(c) A consolidated listing of all Schedule A, B, C, and Policy/Career authorities current as of June 30 of each year, with assigned authority numbers, shall be published annually as a notice in the
(a) When OPM specifies that appointments under a particular Schedule A, B, C, D, or Policy/Career authority must be temporary, intermittent, or seasonal, or when agencies elect to make temporary, intermittent, or seasonal appointments in Schedule A, B, C, D, or Policy/Career, those terms have the following meaning:
(1)
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(a) Upon specific authorization by OPM, agencies may make appointments under this section to noncareer positions that are of a confidential or policy-determining character and are normally subject to change as a result of a Presidential transition. Positions filled under this authority are excepted from the competitive service and constitute Schedule C. Each position will be assigned a number from §§ 213.3302 through 213.3999, or other appropriate number, to be used by the agency in recording appointments made under that authorization.
(a) As authorized by the President, agencies may make appointments under this section to career positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character that are not in the Senior Executive Service. Positions filled under this authority are excepted from the competitive service and constitute Schedule Policy/Career.
(b) Employees in or applicants for Schedule Policy/Career positions are not required to personally or politically support the current President or the policies of the current administration. They are required to faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President. Failure to do so is grounds for dismissal.
(c) Individuals appointed to positions in Schedule Policy/Career are not subject to probationary or trial periods and acquire competitive status after completing one year of continuous service.
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302, 3317, 3318, 3319, 3320, 8151. E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14171, 90 FR 8625. Sec. 302.105 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104; sec. 3(5), Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1112. Sec. 302.501 also issued under 5 U.S.C. ch. 77. Sec. 302.107 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 9201-9206; sec. 1122(b)(1), Pub. L. 116-92, 133 Stat. 1605.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(7) Positions included in Schedule C (see subpart C of part 213 of this chapter);
(c) * * * Persons appointed pursuant to a specific authorization by OPM under this paragraph may acquire a competitive status.
(d) Agencies shall make appointments to positions in Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service in the same manner as to positions in the competitive service, unless such positions would, but for their placement in Schedule Policy/Career, be listed in another excepted service schedule. Appointments to positions in Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service that would, but for their placement in Schedule Policy/Career, be listed in another excepted service schedule shall be made pursuant to the rules applicable to such positions in the corresponding schedule. Individuals appointed to a position under 5 CFR 213.3501 acquire competitive status after completing one year of continuous service in the position.
5 U.S.C. 4303, 4305.
(f) * * *
(10) An employee occupying a position in Schedule C or Schedule Policy/Career as authorized under part 213 of this chapter;
5 U.S.C. 4302, 4501-4509; E.O. 11438, 33 FR 18085, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 755; E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 569.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) To positions that are excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential or policy-making character.
5 U.S.C. 6329b, 7504, 7514, 7515, and 7543; 38 U.S.C. 7403; Sec. 512, Pub. L. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2112; E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
(b)
(1) An employee in the competitive service who has completed a probationary or trial period, or who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(2) An employee in the competitive service serving in an appointment which requires no probationary or trial period, and who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(3) An employee with competitive status who occupies a position under Schedule B of part 213 of this chapter;
(4) An employee who was in the competitive service at the time his or her position was first listed under Schedule A or B of the excepted service and still occupies that position;
(5) An employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7401(3); and
(6) An employee of the Government Publishing Office.
(c) * * *
(5) Of a National Guard Technician; or
(6) Taken under 5 U.S.C. 7515.
(c)
(1) A career or career conditional employee in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period;
(2) An employee in the competitive service—
(i) Who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment; or
(ii) Who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(3) An employee in the excepted service who is a preference eligible in an Executive agency as defined at section 105 of title 5, United States Code, the U.S. Postal Service, or the Postal Regulatory Commission and who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions;
(4) A Postal Service employee covered by Public Law 100-90 who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions and who is either a supervisory or management employee or an employee engaged in personnel work in other than a purely nonconfidential clerical capacity;
(5) An employee in the excepted service who is a nonpreference eligible in an Executive agency as defined at 5 U.S.C. 105, and who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less;
(6) An employee with competitive status who occupies a position in Schedule B of part 213 of this chapter;
(7) An employee who was in the competitive service at the time his or
(8) An employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs appointed under 38 U.S.C. 7401(3); and
(9) An employee of the Government Publishing Office.
(d) * * *
(2) An employee whose position is in Schedule C or Schedule Policy/Career.
(a)