Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 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.
Federal Energy Management Program, Department of Energy.
Final rule; stay.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is reviewing its recent guidance related to the implementation of newly adopted provisions regarding Clean Energy for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings (CER). While DOE reviews the CER implementation guidance, DOE is staying the compliance date for the newly adopted provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Effective May 5, 2025, the May 1, 2025, compliance date for 10 CFR part 433, subpart B, and 10 CFR part 435, subpart B, is stayed until May 1, 2026.
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Rick Mears, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Under Secretary for Infrastructure, Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP-1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone: 240-278-5857. Email:
On May 1, 2024, DOE issued regulations that require certain new Federal buildings and Federal buildings undergoing major renovations to be designed to reduce their fossil fuel-generated energy consumption and provides a process for Federal agencies to petition for a downward adjustment from these requirements if applicable.
Shortly after DOE published the implementation guidance document and the petition template, President Trump announced new energy policies, specifically those relating to energy security and reliability.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 29, 2025, by Mary Sotos, the Director of the Federal Energy Management Program, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/ -400F series airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Archeion Holdings LLC (Archeion), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a digital systems architecture that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, (
This action is effective on May 5, 2025. Send comments on or before June 20, 2025.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2025-0403 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Thuan T. Nguyen, Avionics Software and Components Unit, AIR-626D, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone (206) 231-3365; email
The FAA has published substantially identical special conditions in the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On August 2, 2024, Archeion applied for a supplemental type certificate for the installation of a digital systems architecture on the Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/-400F series airplanes that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources. These airplanes, currently approved under Type Certificate No. A20WE, are four-engine, transport category airplanes, with a maximum takeoff weight between 833,748 lbs and 875,000, and a maximum passenger capacity of 660 persons.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Archeion must show that Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/-400F airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A20WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/-400F series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of
The Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/ -400F series airplanes, as modified by Archeion, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The installation of a digital systems architecture that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, (
The Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/ -400F series airplane's electronic system architecture and network configuration change is novel or unusual for transport airplanes because it may allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, airline operations, and maintenance networks, to the airplane control domain, and airline information services domain. The airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with external network sources. This data network and design integration creates the potential for unauthorized persons to access the airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane-system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security (
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/-400F series airplanes as modified by Archeion. Should Archeion apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 747-400/-400D/-400F series airplanes, as modified by Archeion.
1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic system security is protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that the electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a right-hand outboard elevator was received and installed without balance weights. This AD requires doing a maintenance records check to determine if certain outboard elevators are installed or an inspection to determine if outboard elevators have balance weights, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 5, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 5, 2025.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 20, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Taylor Stanley, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 407-852-7677; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Taylor Stanley, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 407-852-7677; email:
The FAA has received a report that a Model 747-8F series airplane operated with a right-hand outboard elevator that was received and installed without balance weights. The operator ordered left- and right-side outboard elevators, part number (P/N) 183U3300-13 and P/N 183U3300-14 respectively, and received outboard elevators, P/N 654U6625-2411 and P/N 654U6625-2412, with associated paperwork that identified the parts were interchangeable with P/N 183U3300-13 and P/N 183U3300-14 and included balance weights. However, P/N 654U6625-2411 and P/N 654U6625-2412 do not contain balance weights. Therefore, the parts are not directly interchangeable and must be balanced prior to installation and flight. A total of 10 spare assemblies, P/N 654U6625-2411 and P/N 654U6625-2412 (5 each), have been delivered to operators since 2022.
Outboard elevators without balance weights, if not addressed, could result in abnormal vibration, buffeting, flutter, or oscillation that could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing. Further, outboard elevators without balance weights could result in personal injury to maintenance personnel during installation or removal of the outboard elevators.
The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025. The material specifies procedures for a maintenance records check to determine if outboard elevators, P/N 654U6625-2411 and P/N 654U6625-2412, are installed, a general visual inspection of the outboard elevators to determine if balance weights are installed, and applicable on-conditions actions. On-condition actions include a maintenance records check to determine if the balance procedure of the outboard elevator was done, a general visual inspection of the outboard elevator for the installation of the balance weights, and corrective action instructions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This AD requires accomplishing the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the Referenced Material” for a discussion of the general differences included in this AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, at
The effectivity of Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, is limited to Model 747-400, -400D, -400F, -8, and -8F series airplanes. However, the applicability of this AD includes all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F, -8, -8F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. Because the affected elevators are rotable parts, the FAA has determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. The FAA has confirmed with Boeing that the Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, can be used for the
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because left-hand and right-hand outboard elevators installed without balance weights, if not addressed, could result in abnormal vibration, buffeting, flutter, or oscillation that could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing. Further, outboard elevators without balance weights could result in personal injury to maintenance personnel during installation or removal of the outboard elevators. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 170 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the records check or inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 5, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -100B, -100B SUD, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, -400F, -8, -8F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by a report that a right-hand outboard elevator was received and installed without balance weights. The FAA is issuing this AD to address left-hand and right-hand outboard elevators delivered without balance weights. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in abnormal vibration, buffeting, flutter, or oscillation that could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing. Further, outboard elevators without balance weights could result in personal injury to maintenance personnel during installation or removal of the outboard elevators.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025. For airplanes not identified in Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, do the actions for Group 1 airplanes specified in Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025.
(1) Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, refer to “the Original Issue date of this safety advisory,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025, specifies contacting Boeing for corrective action instructions: This AD requires doing the instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the actions required by this AD can be performed, provided the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, concurs with issuance of the special flight permit. Send requests for concurrence by email to
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(3) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For material that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Taylor Stanley, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 407-852-7677; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Safety Advisory 747-BSA-55-001, dated April 24, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological materials from the Republic of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan). These restrictions are imposed pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Uzbekistan, entered into under the authority of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. This document amends the CBP regulations by adding Uzbekistan to the list of countries which have bilateral agreements with the United States imposing cultural property import restrictions and contains the Designated
Effective on May 5, 2025.
For legal aspects, W. Richmond Beevers, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0084,
The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
Under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1), the United States must make certain determinations before entering into an agreement to impose import restrictions under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). On June 6, 2023, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations required under the statute with respect to certain archaeological and ethnological material originating in Uzbekistan that is described in the Designated List set forth below in this document.
These determinations include the following: (1) that the cultural patrimony of Uzbekistan is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological material representing Uzbekistan's cultural heritage dating from approximately 50,000 B.C.E. to 1773 C.E., and ethnological materials dating from approximately 600 to 1917 C.E. (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(A)); (2) that the government of Uzbekistan has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(B)); (3) that import restrictions imposed by the United States would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and remedies less drastic are not available (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(C)); and (4) that the application of import restrictions as set forth in this final rule is consistent with the general interests of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(D)). The Assistant Secretary also found that the material described in the determinations meets the statutory definition of “archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party” (19 U.S.C. 2601(2)).
On November 7, 2023, the Governments of the United States and Uzbekistan signed a bilateral agreement, “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Materials of Uzbekistan” (hereinafter, “the Agreement”), pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). The Agreement entered into force upon signature and enables the promulgation of import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological material ranging in date from approximately 50,000 B.C.E. to 1773 C.E., as well as certain categories of ethnological material dating from approximately 600 to 1917 C.E. A list of the categories of archaeological and ethnological materials subject to the import restrictions is set forth later in this document.
In accordance with the Agreement, importation of material designated below is subject to the restrictions of 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104g(a) and will be restricted from entry into the United States unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met. CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to indicate that these import restrictions have been imposed.
Import restrictions listed at 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which an agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of not more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists. Therefore, the import restrictions will expire on November 7, 2028, unless extended.
The Agreement between the United States and Uzbekistan includes, but is not limited to, the categories of objects described in the Designated List set forth below.
The Designated List includes archaeological and ethnological material of Uzbekistan. The archaeological material in the Designated List ranges in date from 50,000 B.C.E. through 1773 C.E. The ethnological material in the Designated List includes architectural elements, funerary objects, Islamic religious and ceremonial objects, and manuscripts associated with Uzbekistan's diverse history from 600 C.E. through 1917 C.E. The Designated List includes, but is not limited to, categories of objects described below.
1. Architectural Elements—Primarily in alabaster, gypsum, jasper, limestone, marble, and onyx, but includes other types of stone. Category includes, but is not limited to, antefixes, balustrades, bricks and blocks from walls, ceilings, and floors; columns including capitals and bases, cornices, door frames, false gables, friezes, lintels, mihrabs, minarets, niches, panels, pillars, plinths, railings, qiblas, slabs, and screens. May be plain, molded, carved, or inscribed in various languages and scripts. Decorative elements may be in high or low relief. Architectural elements may include relief and inlay sculptures that were part of a building (
2. Non-Architectural Relief Sculptures—Primarily in alabaster, limestone, marble, steatite schist, and other types of stone. Types include, but are not limited to, carved bases, ceiling decoration, funerary headstones, fountains, monoliths, niches, plaques, roundels, slabs, sundials, and stela bases. Decorative elements may be in high- or low-relief and may include animal and/or human forms as well as floral, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs.
3. Small Statuary—Primarily in alabaster, calcite, chlorite, dolomite, jasper, limestone, marble, and steatite schist; primarily free standing; may have been shaped by carving, incision, grinding, polishing, or other techniques. Animal and human forms tend to be stylized. Includes game pieces. Small statuary is found throughout many archaeological periods from the Bronze Age onward; it is especially characteristic for BMAC and Kushan Bactria (Gandhara Art).
a. BMAC figurative statuary is often composite and made of more than one type of stone, often chlorite or steatite, with limestone. Bactrian statues are in anthropomorphic forms, primarily female, and are elaborately carved and/or incised. Forms tend to be abstract and stylized, with armless bodies and legs, and a small protruding head. Heads tend to be small and carved in white limestone. Often in a seated or squatting position. Zoomorphic forms are also included and are often in a squatting or coiled position. Sizes vary but are typically 14 cm tall. Approximate date: 3rd to 2nd millennium B.C.E.
b. Non-figurative BMAC statuary includes types such as so-called “columns,” “discs,” or “handbags.” Column and disc statues have a smooth finish. Columns may have an elongated and/or tapered form, wider at the base than at the top. Column sizes vary, but typically range from 28 to 40 cm high and from 10 to 20 cm wide. Discs may have an incision or groove through the center. Disc sizes vary, but typically range from 20 to 30 cm wide. Approximate date: 3rd to 2nd millennium B.C.E.
c. Late Antiquity statuary (sometimes called Sassanian) includes animal and human figures shaped by carving, grinding, and/or polishing. Figures tend to be stylized. May have been used for a variety of purposes, including as gaming pieces. Approximate date: 200-700 C.E.
4. Rock Art—Includes petroglyphs carved into limestone, shale, granite, or sandstone. Images may depict people such as archers and horse riders; animals such as birds, camels, donkeys, horses, foxes, leopards, mountain goats, oxen, wolves, or others; mythological figures; geographic symbols; sun symbols; or inscriptions, often in Arabic. Approximate date: 12,000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
5. Vessels and Containers—Primarily in alabaster, greenstone, jade, marble, steatite schist, and other materials. Vessel types may be conventional shapes such as bowls, boxes, canisters, cups, cylindrical vessels, goblets, flasks, jars, jugs, lamps, pipes, platters, stands, trays, votive vessels, and others. Includes vessel lids. Surfaces may be plain, polished, and/or incised or carved in relief with geometric, floral, or vegetal decoration, elaborate figural scenes, and/or inscriptions in various languages. Vessels may be inlaid with stones. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
6. Tools, Instruments, and Weights—Includes ground stone and flaked stone tools.
a. Ground stone tools, instruments, and weights are mainly made from diorite, granite, marble, limestone, sandstone, quartz, and quartzite, but other types of stone are included. Types include balls, batons, maces, mortars, palettes, pestles, scrapers, scepters, and others. Includes spindle whorls and weights. Ends of batons and scepters may be carved or shaped. Stone weights can be shaped or ground into various forms, including balls, cubes, handbags, pyramids, rings, or teardrop shapes; may be polished; and may be decorated with incisions or inscriptions in multiple languages. Stone weights typically vary from 20 to 30 cm. Stone tools used to polish, shape, or sharpen other tools are included.
b. Flaked stone tools are primarily made of andesite, chert or other cryptocrystalline silicates, diabase, flint, jasper, limestone, sandstone, silicified limestone, quartz, quartzite, and others. Flaked stone tool types include awls, axes, bifaces, blades, choppers, cores, flakes, hammers, knives, microblades, microliths, projectiles, scrapers, sickles, unifaces, and others. Also includes tools like hammerstones and anvils used to create flaked stone tools.
7. Beads and Jewelry—Primarily in agalmatolite, argillite, agate, carnelian, chlorite, crypto-crystalline silicates, garnet, gypsum, flint, lapis lazuli, serpentine, slate, steatite schist, talc,
8. Stamps, Seals, and Gems—Primarily in agate, crypto-crystalline silicates, garnet, hematite, lapis, limestone, marble, nephrite, obsidian, rock crystal, steatite schist, or other types of stone. Stamps and seals may have engravings that include animals, human figures, geometric designs, inscriptions in various languages and scripts, and/or floral/vegetal motifs. Includes cameos and intaglios. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1500 C.E.
1. Statuary—Includes small and large-scale statuary in ceramic, faience, and terracotta. May take animal, deity, human, or mythical forms. Forms may also be composite, such as horse and rider statues. Many terracotta statues were created using molds. Some statues served as or on ossuaries for human remains. May have traces of paint, pigment, and/or plaster. Forms may be stylized. May be associated with religious activity, games, or toys. Includes terracotta molds. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
2. Architectural Elements—Includes terracotta bricks, cornices, mihrabs, mosaics, niches, panels, pillars, pipes, tiles, window screens, and other elements used functionally or decoratively in buildings and mosaics. Bricks may be cut, carved, or molded to form decorative patterns on building exteriors. Mosaic designs include animals, humans, and geometric, floral, and/or vegetal motifs. Panels and tiles may be painted, plastered, or have traces of paint or plaster. Glazed tiles, porcelain tiles, and glazed bricks are well-known from the Middle Mongolian through the Uzbek Periods, used to decorate civic and religious architecture. Tiles may be rectangular, square, polygonal, or curved, or take three-dimensional forms, such as stalactites and
3. Vessels—Includes utilitarian vessels, fine tableware, lamps, ossuaries, special-purpose vessels, and other ceramic objects of everyday use produced in many periods of Uzbekistan's history. Approximate date: 5,000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
a. Neolithic—Includes earthenware vessels. Vessel types include bowls, cups, goblets, jars, vases, and other forms. Some vessels were painted with floral, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs or have incised or stamped decoration. May be undecorated. Approximate date: 5,000-3000 B.C.E.
b. Bronze Age through Late Antiquity Periods—Includes earthenware vessels that may have a pink, peach, orange, or gray core. Vessel types include conventional shapes such as basins, beakers, bottles, bowls, goblets, jars, pitchers, storage vessels, vases, as well other forms, such as cosmetic jars, incense burners, lamps, ossuaries, stands, and table amphorae. Vessel forms may have pedestalled bases and/or handles. Surface treatments may include glaze, slip, paint, and/or burnishing/polishing. Slip colors vary, but are typically buff, grey/black, or red. Decorative techniques include incised, stamped, and impressed decorations, including grooving, roulette, stamping, and other techniques. Stamps used for decoration range from simple geometric patterns to rosettes to elaborate scenes combining animal, floral, geometric, and/or vegetal designs. Some ceramic vessels were painted, designs vary but may include geometric, linear, or vegetal designs. Some vessels, like ossuaries, may have elaborate shapes created using molds; these shapes include chests with gabled lids and anthropomorphic forms. High-relief surface decorative techniques may include affixing or carving animal heads, scenes, or rosettes to the exterior surface of a vessel. Examples include Greco-Bactrian vessels that range from plain to having multiple types of surface treatment and decorative techniques. Some Late Antiquity vessel forms may have uniformly glazed ceramics in green, blue-green, or yellow glazes, while utilitarian forms may be unglazed. Includes lids of ceramic vessels. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-700 C.E.
c. Islamic Periods—Includes earthenware vessels (often red and buff) and porcelain. Vessel types may form conventional shapes such as bowls, cups, dishes, ewers, flasks, ink stands, jars, jugs, platters, saucers, trays, and other types such as incense burners, ink pots, footed vessels, and zoomorphic shapes. May be hand-built, molded, or wheel thrown. Some common kitchenware ceramics were unglazed. Surface treatments may include slip, polishing, burnishing, stamping, and others. Vessels may have slip and paint. Other decorative techniques include incisions; high-relief carvings or additions; painted designs with anthropomorphic, floral, geometric, vegetal, and/or zoomorphic motifs; and/or inscriptions in multiple languages and scripts. Vessels may have colorless lead, monochrome, or polychrome glazing. Vessels may be colorful. Common colors include black, blue, brown, green, olive, tomato red, turquoise, yellow, and white. Glazed plates and bowls with inscriptions and/or stylized animals on a white background or with designs in black and white on an ochre-brown background are typical of the Samanid period. Includes lids of ceramic vessels. Approximate date: 700-1773 C.E.
4. Beads, Jewelry, and Ornaments—Includes bangles, beads, bracelets, buttons, ear spools, inlays, masks, rings, and spindle whorls, made of faience and terracotta. Approximate date: 12,000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
1. Containers and Vessels—Vessel types include conventional shapes such as basins, bowls, braziers, cauldrons, cups, dishes, ewers, flacons, jars, jugs, lamps, plates, platters, stands, table ornaments, and utensils, and may also include cosmetic containers, candlesticks, incense burners, medicine droppers, reliquaries (and their contents), spouted vessels, trays, and tripod stands. Includes lids, spouts, and handles of vessels. Metal containers may have been decorated by chasing (embossing), engraving, gilding, inlaying, punching, and/or repoussé (relief hammering). Designs include, but are not limited to, inscriptions in various languages and scripts, arabesque (intertwining) motifs, geometric, floral, and vegetal motifs, animal motifs, and portrait busts or scenes of human figures, such as ceremonial, banquet, or hunt scenes. Some containers may be inlaid with precious or semi-precious stones. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
2. Jewelry and Personal Adornments—Types include, but are not limited to, amulets, belt-buckles, bracelets, buttons, crowns, earrings, mirrors, necklaces, pendants, pins, plaques, and finger rings. May have been decorated by chasing (embossing), cloisonné, enameling, engraving, filigree, gilding, granulation, inlaying, and/or repoussé (relief hammering). May be inlaid with precious or semi-precious stones. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
3. Tools and Instruments—Types include, but are not limited to, awls, axes, bells, blades, celts, knives, needles, projectiles, socketed axes, spatulas, spearheads, and tools of craftspersons such as carpenters, masons, and metal smiths. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
4. Weapons and Armor—Includes body armor, such as helmets, shin guards, shields, horse armor and bits. Launching weapons (arrowheads, spears, and javelins); hand-to-hand combat weapons (swords, daggers); and sheaths. Some weapons may be highly decorative and include inlays of other types of metals, precious stones, or semi-precious stones in the sheaths and hilts. Approximate date: 2000 B.C.E.-1773 C.E.
5. Coins—Ancient coins commonly found in Uzbekistan include gold, silver, copper, and copper alloy coins in a variety of denominations. Includes gold and silver ingots, which may be plain and/or inscribed. Some of the most well-known types are described below:
a. Achaemenid period coins, including Darics, Sigloi, Late Achaemenid Anatolian currencies. Approximate date: 550-330 B.C.E.
b. Greco-Bactrian coins, include gold staters, silver tetradrachms, silver and bronze drachms, and a small number of punch-marked coins. The bust of the king, the king on horseback, or an animal were on the obverse, and images of Greek deities or various symbols were on the reverse with the king's name written in Greek. Local rulers also minted imitations of these types. Approximate date: 250-125 B.C.E.
c. Kushan Dynasty coins include silver tetradrachms, copper coins, bronze didrachms, and gold dinars. Imagery includes portrait busts (Augustus type) or standing figures of the king with his emblem (tamgha). Classical Greek and Zoroastrian deities and images of the Buddha are depicted on the reverse. Approximate date: 19-230 C.E.
d. Kushano-Sasanian or Kushanshah coins include gold dinars, silver tetradrachms, and copper alloy denominations. Some Kushano-Sasanian coins followed the Kushan style of imagery, while others resemble Sasanian coins with the bust of the king wearing a large crown and Zoroastrian fire altars and deities. Inscriptions are written in Bactrian, Brahmi, or Pahlavi scripts. Approximate date: 225-365 C.E.
e. Hunnic (Hephthalite and Kidarite) coins include silver drachms, silver dinars, and small copper and bronze coins. Hephthalite coins resemble Sasanian coins with a portrait bust of the king on the obverse and a Zoroastrian fire altar on the reverse. Approximate date: late 4th to mid-8th centuries C.E.
f. Sogdian coins include bronze and silver dirhams and drachms. Some Sogdian coins are cast with a central hole, similar to coins from the Tang Dynasty in China. Sogdian coins may include imagery of Zoroastrian fire altars, rulers, portrait busts in profile, horse and rider, camels, and lions. Coins may have inscriptions in Sogdian scripts. Approximate dates: 4th to 9th centuries C.E.
g. Samanid, Karakhanid, Khorezmshah dynasty coins include bronze, copper, silver, and gold dinars and jitals and silver dirhams. Coins of these dynasties usually display Arabic inscriptions on both faces. Some Karakhanid coins have punch marks, like coins from the Tang Dynasty. Some Khorezmshah coins may have imagery of an elephant or horse with rider. Approximate date: 800-1250 C.E.
h. Chaghatai and Timurid coins include silver and copper tangas and dinars. Both coin types are decorated with Arabic inscriptions. Approximate date: 1227-1507 C.E.
i. Khanates of Bukhara, Khiva, and Kokand coins include copper, silver, and gold tangas; gold dinars; silver tetradrachms; gold ashfris and tillos or tillas. Coin types are decorated with inscriptions. Coins may be associated with the Janid, Shaybanid, or other dynasties. Approximate date: 1500-1773 C.E.
6. Statuary, Ornaments, and other Decorated Objects—Primarily in copper, gold, silver, bronze, or alloys of copper, tin, lead, and zinc. Includes free-standing or supported statuary; relief plaques or tablets; votive ornaments; and other ornaments. Decoration may include humans, animals, mythological figures (
7. Stamps and Seals—Primarily in cast bronze, and alloys of copper, tin lead, and zinc; includes stamps and seals in gold or silver. Types include amulets, rings, small devices with engraving on one side, and others. Stamps and seals may have engravings that include animals, human figures, geometric designs, inscriptions in various languages and scripts, and/or floral/vegetal motifs. May be compartmented or have inlay of other types of material. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1500 C.E.
8. Architectural Elements—Includes finials, fittings, and ornaments in metal on doors, windows, domes, and fountains. Approximate date: 600-1773 C.E.
1. Jewelry and Items of Personal Adornment—Primarily made from animal bone, animal teeth, bird bone, cowrie shell, horn, mother of pearl, shell, and tusks. Includes beads, buckles, buttons, combs, jewelry inlay, and others.
2. Containers, Handles, Statuary, Tools, and other Non-Architectural Objects—Includes awls, game die, handles on daggers, mirrors, needles, pins, plaques, pyxides/pyxis, rhytons, spoons, spinning and weaving tools, statuary/figurines, and other personal objects.
3. Furniture—Includes arms, brackets, handles, finials, footstools, and legs of chairs, chests, trunks, and other types of furniture.
1. Architectural Elements—Mosaics and stained glass with various designs and colors. May be part of large designs with floral, geometric, and/or vegetal motifs, often with religious imagery. Includes glass inlay used in architectural elements. Glass architectural materials are typically associated with mausoleums, mosques, and religious buildings. Approximate date: 800-1773 C.E.
2. Beads, Jewelry, and Ornaments—Includes beads that may be cylindrical, spherical, conical, disc, and others. Decorations may include bevels, incisions, and/or raised decoration. Glass beads may be used to adorn clothing, jewelry, ornaments, and other objects. Includes glass inlay used in other types of beads and/or jewelry. Approximate date: 1st century-1773 C.E.
3. Vessels—Vessel types may form conventional shapes such as beakers, bowls, cups, dishes, flasks, goblets, jars, lamps, mugs, perfume bottles, and vases, and other shapes such as cosmetic containers, medicine droppers, reliquaries, and others. Some vessel types may have been blown into molds or created using stamps. May have decorative elements including, but not limited to, simple geometric patterns or high-relief patterns including honeycomb patterns and waves. May be monochrome or polychrome. Approximate date: 800-1773 C.E.
4. Ornaments—Includes glass figurines and glass medallions. Figurines may be in the shape of animals, such as birds. Includes glass medallions, which may have impressed or relief patterns, such as animals, fish, hunting scenes, vegetal patterns, and others. Approximate date: 800-1773 C.E.
1. Manuscripts—Manuscripts, portions of manuscripts, and works on paper include handmade, handwritten, hand-illustrated and/or illuminated scrolls, sheets, bound volumes, and their bindings. Includes fragments. Writing, illustrations, and/or illuminations in ink, paint, and gold may be found on various media, including but not limited to, parchment, vellum, cotton, silk, and paper. Bindings may be composed of leather, wood, cloth, paper, and/or paste or pulp board. Texts may be written in various scripts and languages, including Kharosthi, Arabic, Persian, Uzbek, Turkish, other Turkic languages, Tajik, Pashto, Sogdian, Khwarezmian/Khorezmian, Manichaean, and others. Includes both religious texts and texts with secular content. Topics include, but are not limited to, astronomy, astrology, biography, botany, genealogy, history, law, literature, mathematics, medicine, memoir, natural sciences, philosophy, poetry, Islamic scriptures (Qu'ran and hadith), theology, and travel. Includes letters, documents, and records of all kinds. Manuscripts may have monochrome, bichrome, polychrome, and/or gold handmade decorations, decoupage and stenciled motifs, illustrations, and/or illuminations, as decorative borders, margins, frames, medallions, cartouches, illuminated frontispieces (
2. Items of Personal Adornment—Primarily in leather, including bracelets, belts, bow cases, necklaces, quivers, saddles, sandals, shoes, and other types of jewelry. May be embroidered or embellished with other types of materials. Leather goods may have also been used in conjunction with other types of textiles.
Ethnological material includes architectural elements, funerary objects, Islamic religious and ceremonial objects, and manuscripts associated with Uzbekistan's diverse history from 600 C.E. through 1917 C.E.
1. Stone—Includes elements in alabaster, gypsum, jasper, limestone, marble, onyx, and other stones. Includes bricks and blocks from walls, ceilings, and floors; balustrades; columns, including capitals and bases; cornices; mihrabs; panels; pillars, including capitals and bases; plinths; railings; slabs; screens; and others. May be plain, carved in relief, incised, inlaid, or inscribed in various languages and scripts. May be painted and/or gilded. Approximate date: 600-1917 C.E.
2. Ceramic and Terracotta—Includes bricks, cornices, mihrabs, mosaics, niches, panels, pillars, tiles, window screens (
3. Metal—Includes finials, fittings, and ornaments in metal on doors, windows, domes, and fountains. Approximate date: 600-1917 C.E.
4. Plaster and Stucco, also called
5. Paintings and Frescoes—Includes paintings and frescoes on the walls and ceilings of civic and religious buildings, and fragments thereof. Motifs include human, animal, bird, and mythical figures in thematic or heraldic scenes; plants and trees in landscapes or as part of geometric designs; interwoven geometric, floral, and/or vegetal designs; and inscriptions in Sogdian, Arabic, or Persian. Paintings can be monochrome or polychrome and may also bear gilding or gold leaf. Approximate date: 600-1917 C.E.
6. Glass—Includes glass pieces or tiles arranged in mosaic fashion to create geometric, floral, and/or vegetal designs on architectural surfaces or in windows. Glass may be mirrored or stained. Approximate date: 1000-1917 C.E.
7. Wood—Includes hand-carved arches, bases, beams, capitals, ceilings, columns, column-bases, doors, door frames, friezes, jambs, lintels, mihrabs, minbars, niches, jambs, panels, posts, screens, shutters, window frames and fittings, and window screens, or parts thereof, used as structural elements in and/or to decorate civic or religious architecture. These architectural elements may have been reused for new purposes, such as a wood panel used as a table or a door jamb used as a bench. May be carved, grooved, incised, inlaid with other materials, and/or painted; carving may appear in low or high relief. Designs include human, animal, and bird figures, interwoven geometric, floral, and/or vegetal motifs, and/or inscriptions in Arabic or Persian. Approximate date: 600-1917 C.E.
1. Non-Architectural Monuments—Primarily in stone (especially alabaster, limestone, and marble) or metal (especially copper, bronze, and brass). Types include plaques and stelae with religious, floral, geometric, or arabesque (intertwining) motifs; may bear Arabic or Persian inscriptions.
2. Vessels and Containers—Includes vessels and containers used in religious and ceremonial settings in stone, metal (especially silver, copper, bronze, brass, and other alloys), ceramic, glass, wood, bone, ivory, leather, lacquered papier-mâché, and other materials. Types include lamps and lanterns; incense burners and braziers; candlesticks, candelabras, and sconces from religious settings; alms or begging bowls
3. Furniture—Primarily in wood and stone. Types include pulpits (minbars), prayer niches (mihrabs), screens, Qu'ran holders or stands, lecterns, study tables, cabinets, and other furniture used in religious and ceremonial settings. May be carved, incised, painted, gilded, and/or inlaid with other materials; may be decorated with interwoven geometric, floral, and/or vegetal motifs, and/or inscriptions in Arabic or Persian.
4. Textiles—Includes textiles used for religious and ceremonial purposes, primarily in linen, silk, and wool. Types include banners, hangings, and curtains used in religious and ceremonial settings; shrine covers; and shrouds. Often woven or embroidered in bright colors with interwoven geometric, floral, or vegetal designs, and/or Arabic or Persian inscriptions.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the 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). CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain exceptions. This regulation is being issued in accordance with DHS Directive 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to cultural property import restrictions.
Pete Flores, Acting Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
(a) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local regulation for certain waters of the St. Mary's River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters, located at Piney Point, MD, during a two-day, high-speed, power boat demonstration event on June 7, 2025, and June 8, 2025. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region, or the Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander.
This rule is in effect from 7:30 a.m. on June 07, 2025, through 5 p.m. on June 08, 2025. It will be enforced, from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 07, 2025, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 08, 2025.
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LCDR Kate Newkirk, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 410-576-2596, email
The Coast Guard has received a request, under 33 CFR 100.15, for a Marine Event Permit to host a high-speed, power boat demonstration event in Piney Point, MD on June 07, 2025, and June 08, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on both days. As “an organized water event of limited duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule,” the scheduled event is a “regatta or marine parade,” as defined at 33 CFR 100.05(a). The Captain of the Port (COTP), after approving plans for the holding of a regatta or marine parade 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 Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory 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.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because at the current time it is impracticable to publish an NPRM, consider comments received, and publish a final rule by June 07, 2025, when the rule must be in place to serve its intended purpose.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Hazards associated with the vintage and historic racing powerboat demonstrations will be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within waters of the St. Mary's River which would be covered by this rule. If normal vessel traffic were allowed to interfere with the event, potential hazards would include the risk of injury or death resulting from near or actual contact among participant vessels, spectator vessels, or non-participant waterway users. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event.
The Coast Guard is promulgating this rule under statutory authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
The COTP is establishing a special local regulation which will be in effect from 7:30 a.m. on June 07, 2025, through 5 p.m. on June 08, 2025. The regulation will only be enforced, however, from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 07, 2025, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 08, 2025. The regulated area covers all navigable waters of St. George Creek. This area starts at Cedar Point, follows the western shoreline south to Coade Bar, then cuts southeast across the creek to Dodson Point. From there, it continues north along the eastern shoreline, including the area near the St. George Island Bridge (SR-249), all the way up to Long Bar at the entrance to St. George Harbor. The boundary then wraps northeast across the creek back to Cedar Point, terminating at the point of origin
The regulated area is approximately 1,750 yards in length and 940 yards in width. The duration of the special local regulation and size of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the high-speed power boat event scheduled to take place from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 07, 2025, and from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 08, 2025. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
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 TFR has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which will impact a small, designated area of St. George Creek for 19 total enforcement hours. This waterway supports mainly recreational vessel traffic with peak vessel traffic occurring during the summer season. Although this regulated area extends across the entire width of the waterway, the rule would allow vessels and persons to seek permission to enter the regulated area if it is safe to do so. The Event PATCOM would allow vessel traffic to transit the eastern portion of the waterway away from the event area when it is safe to do so. Vessels given permission to enter the regulated area must operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake and must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), 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
This 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 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 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 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 rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential 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 determination that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area for 19 total enforcement hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
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.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this section must immediately depart the regulated area.
(3) A spectator must contact the Event PATCOM to request permission to either enter or pass through the regulated area. The Event PATCOM, and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channels 22A (157.1 MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must enter the designated Spectator Area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. A vessel within the regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulate area.
(4) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter and remain within the race area.
(5) Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter and transit directly through the buffer area, to arrive at or depart from the race area.
(6) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Event PATCOM before doing so. A person or vessel seeking such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the Event PATCOM on Marine Band radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(7) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event dates and times.
(d)
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various special local regulations for the annual regattas and marine parades on dates between July 11, 2025, and August 31, 2025, in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone. Our regulation for marine events within Sector Detroit identifies the regulated area for these events. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.911 will be enforced for the regulated areas listed in table 1 to § 100.911, as follows:
•
•
•
•
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9564, email
The Coast Guard will enforce multiple special local regulations for annual events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone listed in table 1 to 33 CFR 100.911, for the following events:
•
•
•
•
In accordance with the requirements of § 100.911, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas during the enforcement periods is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). Those seeking permission to enter the regulated areas may request permission from the PATCOM. Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.
The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene representative or by event representatives during the event.
If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.
In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.40 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM, or his designated “on-scene representative”, may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior.
Interim final rule; further delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from President Donald J. Trump, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action provides a third notification to delay the effective date of the interim final rule published on January 10, 2025, until June 4, 2025.
As of May 2, 2025, the effective date of the rule published at 90 FR 2332 on January 10, 2025, and delayed February 10, 2025 (90 FR 9222), and delayed March 13, 2025 (90 FR 12461) is further delayed to June 4, 2025.
Rachel R. Lukens, telephone: (703) 235-3810, email:
The interim final rule, “Practices Before the Department of the Interior,” published on January 10, 2025, at 90 FR 2332, included a 30-day public comment period that ended on February 10, 2025. The effective date of the interim final rule was February 10, 2025. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is taking this action in accordance with Memorandum M-25-10 of January 20, 2025, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Implementation of Regulatory Freeze, regarding the postponement of effective dates of certain published regulations The memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to consider postponing for sixty days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the
OHA is extending the effective date of the interim final rule without opportunity for public comment and making the extension effective immediately, based on the good cause exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment on the extension is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. This third delay of the effective date until June 4, 2025, is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the memorandum of the President, dated January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date of the interim final rule, seeking prior public comment on this delay is impractical, and contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) also applies to OHA's decision to make this action effective immediately.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of TV Allotments (table) of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules by substituting channel 12 for channel 20 at Hazard, Kentucky in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Gray), the licensee of WYMT-TV, Hazard, Kentucky. The staff engineering analysis finds that the proposal is in compliance with the Commission's principal community coverage and technical requirements. The substitution of channel 12 for channel 20 in the table will allow the station to continue to operate on its licensed channel and provide uninterrupted service to its viewers.
Effective May 5, 2025.
Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 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,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(j) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of TV Allotments (table) of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules by substituting channel 12 for channel 28 at Wichita, Kansas in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Gray), the licensee of KSCW-DT, Wichita, Kansas. The staff engineering analysis finds that the proposal is in compliance with the Commission's principal community coverage and technical requirements. The substitution of channel 12 for channel 28 in the table will allow the station to continue to operate on its licensed channel and provide uninterrupted service to its viewers.
Effective May 5, 2025.
Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 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,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(j) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of TV Allotments (table) of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules by substituting channel 15 for channel 11 at Price, Utah in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by Gray Television Licensee, LLC (Gray), the permittee of new full power television station KCBU, channel 11, Price, Utah. The staff engineering analysis finds that the proposal is in compliance with the Commission's principal community coverage and technical requirements. The substitution of channel 15 for channel 11 in the table will not result in any loss of existing service and it will also allow Gray to avoid the known viewer receptions issues on its currently authorized VHF channel.
Effective May 5, 2025.
Emily Harrison, Media Bureau, at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 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,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(j) * * *
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by cracking found during an inspection on an airplane equipped with Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) scimitar blended winglets (SBWs). This proposed AD would require performing a general visual inspection (GVI) or maintenance records check of certain stringers for an approved freeze plug repair, performing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the same area for any crack common to a certain stringer and a reinforcement strap, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 20, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-830-7699; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Sarah Illg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 206-231-3517; 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 the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sarah Illg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 206-231-3517; email:
The FAA has received a report indicating a crack on a Model 757-200 airplanes equipped with APB scimitar blended winglets found during an HFEC inspection during accomplishment of a 4C maintenance check. The airplane had 22,185 total flight cycles and 106,470 total flight hours. The 0.40-inch crack was found on the right wing lower stringer L-8 vertical web flange at approximately wing station (WS) 401, located at a fastener common to the stringer L-8 and a reinforcement strap. The blended winglet configuration on Model 757-200 and -300 airplanes is similar; therefore, the 757-300 airplanes are also subject to the unsafe condition identified in this NPRM. This condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012 Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing a GVI or maintenance records check of the lower stringer L-6 and lower stringer L-8 vertical web flange, between WS 397.50 and WS 403 for an approved freeze plug repair; a surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the wing lower stringer L-6 and lower stringer L-8 vertical web flange, common to the reinforcement strap attach fasteners located between WS 397.50 and WS 403.00; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repetitive surface HFEC inspections for cracking, crack length measurement, a surface HFEC inspection of the lower stringer L-6 or L-8 vertical web flange around each of the four fasteners for cracks, crack removal, freeze plug repair, and crack repair.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 20, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraph 1.A.1 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an operator reporting a crack on a Model 757-200 airplane equipped with Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) scimitar blended winglets (SBWs). The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for cracking on the right- or left-wing lower stringer L-8 or L-6 vertical web flange at a fastener common to the reinforcement strap. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in “Compliance” paragraph of
(2) Where Table 2 and Table 3 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 9,500 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
(3) Where Table 5 and Table 6 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 8,000 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
(4) Where Table 9 and Table 10 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 9,500 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 22 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
(5) Where Table 12 and Table 13 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 8,000 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or 22 within months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs latest.
(6) Where flagnote (b) of Figure 5 and Figure 10 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies “If the crack is less than or equal to 0.268 inch, remove the crack. Refer to 757-200 SRM 51-10-02 as an accepted procedure. Maximum hole diameter 0.80 inch,” for this AD, replace that text with “If the crack is less than or equal to 0.268 inch, remove the crack. Refer to 757-200 SRM 51-10-02 as an accepted procedure. Maximum hole diameter 0.80 inch. Do an open-hole HFEC inspection of the hole in the stringer in accordance with 757 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-04, 51-00-11, or 51-00-16.”
(7) Where Condition 2 of Table 6 in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, includes “remove crack” as part of the actions, the action “remove crack” is not required by this AD for Condition 2 of Table 6.
(8) Where Action 2 of Condition 4.2 in Table 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, does not include a method of compliance for the inspection, for this AD, the method of compliance is Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(9) Where Action 2 of Condition 4.2 in Table 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, does not include a method of compliance for the inspection, for this AD, the method of compliance is Figure 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(10) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies contacting Aviation Partners Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Although Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies to report existing repairs, this AD does not require any report.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) Except as specified by paragraph (g) of this AD: For material that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Sarah Illg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 206-231-3517; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-830-7699; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Wickenburg, AZ. The FAA is proposing this action to support new instrument procedures and to support instrument flight rule (IFR) operations.
Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-0466 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AWP-138 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wickenburg Municipal Airport, Wickenburg, AZ, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wickenburg Municipal Airport, Wickenburg, AZ, beginning at point lat 34°01′27″ N, long 112°32′48″ W to lat 34°01′14″ N, long 112°31′50″ W to lat 33°59′31″ N, long 112°32′238″ W then following the 12.8-mile radius from the airport clockwise to lat 33°49′30″ N, long 112°58′57″ W to lat 33°51′03″ N, long 113°02′00″ W to lat 33°52′07″ N, long 113°01′13″ W then following the 12.8-mile radius from the airport clockwise to the point of origination.
This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.
The FAA has determined that this proposed 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. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wickenburg Municipal Airport, Wickenburg, AZ, beginning at point lat 34°01′27″ N, long 112°32′48″ W to lat 34°01′14″ N, long 112°31′50″ W to lat 33°59′31″ N, long 112°32′238″ W then following the 12.8-mile radius from the airport clockwise to lat 33°49′30″ N, long 112°58′57″ W to lat 33°51′03″ N, long 113°02′00″ W to lat 33°52′07″ N, long 113°01′13″ W then following the 12.8-mile radius from the airport clockwise to the point of origination.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
FinCEN is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, that proposes prohibiting the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf of, Huione Group, a foreign financial institution based in Cambodia found to be of primary money laundering concern. The NPRM also would require covered financial institutions to apply special due diligence to their foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against their use to process transactions involving Huione Group.
Written comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking must be submitted on or before June 4, 2025.
Comments must be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Please submit comments by one method only and note that comments submitted in response to this NPRM will become a matter of public record.
The FinCEN Resource Center at
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (section 311), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) the authority to make a finding that “reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that any of the following “is of primary money laundering concern:
(i) A jurisdiction outside of the United States;
(ii) One or more financial institutions operating outside of the United States;
(iii) One or more classes of transactions within, or involving, a jurisdiction outside of the United States; or
(iv) One or more types of accounts.
Upon making such a finding, the Secretary is authorized to require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to take certain “special measures.”
Before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a financial institution outside of the United States (or other jurisdiction, account, or class of transactions) is of primary money laundering concern, the Secretary is required to consult with both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.
• The extent to which such a financial institution is used to facilitate or promote money laundering in or through a jurisdiction outside the United States, including any money laundering activity by organized criminal groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or missiles.
• The extent to which such a financial institution is used for legitimate business purposes in the jurisdiction; and
• The extent to which such action is sufficient to ensure, with respect to transactions involving the jurisdiction and institutions operating in the jurisdiction, that the purposes of section 311 continue to be fulfilled, and to guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes.
In selecting one or more special measures, the Secretary “shall consult with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any other appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act), the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration Board, and in the sole discretion of the Secretary, such other agencies and interested parties as the Secretary may find appropriate.”
• Whether similar action has been or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups;
• Whether the imposition of any particular special measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage, including any undue cost or burden associated with compliance, for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States;
• The extent to which the action or the timing of the action would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, or on legitimate business activities involving the particular jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions, or type of account; and
• The effect of the action on United States national security and foreign policy.
The authority of the Secretary to administer the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its implementing regulations, including the authority under section 311 to make such a finding and to impose special measures, has been delegated to FinCEN.
Huione Group
For years, Huione Group has laundered illicit proceeds from cybercrimes—namely, cyber heists carried out by the Lazarus Group,
Since its establishment, Huione Group has set up a network of businesses, each playing a different role in its money laundering enterprise. However, FinCEN's analysis of Huione Group has identified the sharing of CVC infrastructure by Huione Group's constituent entities, indicating that the entities, including the parent Huione Group, are functionally operating as one and the same, despite the various branding. Because Huione Group's subsidiaries have shared CVC infrastructure with its constituent entities, the structure makes it challenging to ascertain the specific subsidiary involved in any particular transaction.
The overall Huione Group network offers unique services ranging from an online marketplace selling items useful for carrying out cyber scams to money laundering services that accept both fiat currencies and CVC. Huione Group has also created its own stablecoin, a type of CVC that is usually backed by a pre-determined quantity of fiat currency, most often the U.S. dollar (USD). The stablecoin, “USDH,” which is a ticker symbol for “U.S. Dollar Huione,” is pegged to the USD at a one-to-one ratio and is represented as a stablecoin that cannot be frozen. In contrast, many stablecoin issuers develop their stablecoins to retain the ability to freeze funds, which they have sometimes done in cases of known criminal activity, or at the request of law enforcement. Because Huione Group claims that USDH cannot be frozen, this service offers Huione Group's clientele a
Finally, much of the illicit revenue laundered through Huione Group originates from well-documented criminal activity, and numerous publicly available reports describe the failings of Huione Group's anti-money laundering/know your customer (AML/KYC) program. Despite these reports and Huione Group's public acknowledgments of its failings,
This NPRM (1) sets forth FinCEN's finding, based on public and non-public information, that Huione Group is a financial institution operating outside of the United States of primary money laundering concern; and (2) proposes that, under special measure five, covered financial institutions be prohibited from opening or maintaining a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, Huione Group.
As set forth above, section 311 authorizes FinCEN, through delegated authority and in pertinent part, to make a finding “that reasonable grounds exist for concluding” that “[one] or more financial institutions operating outside of the United States” is “of primary money laundering concern.”
The BSA defines a “financial institution” to be any of several categories of entities, including money transmitters.
As detailed further below, much of Huione Group's illicit money transmitting activity occurs through transactions in CVC. This is consistent with the money transmitter definition, which includes services in CVC. FinCEN's May 9, 2019, Guidance on CVC explains that for the purposes of the BSA's implementing regulations, persons “may be a money transmitter . . . regardless of the technology employed for the transmittal of value or the type of asset the person uses as value that substitutes for currency, or whether such asset is physical or virtual.”
Huione Group is a parent entity that controls three subsidiaries: (i) Haowang Guarantee; (ii) Huione Pay PLC; and (iii) Huione Crypto (collectively, the “Subsidiaries”). Based on the following, FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that Huione Group and each of the Subsidiaries engages in the business of money transmission, and is thereby a financial institution under the BSA and its implementing regulations.
Huione Group is a Cambodia based, Hong Kong-registered
Huione Group, as an individual entity, coordinates the Subsidiaries' activities by operating the customer service and public relations functions of the Huione Group. Huione Group does this by hosting Telegram channels to aid customers experiencing problems with the services that the Subsidiaries provide.
FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that Huione Group is a money transmitter. By providing customer service and public relations services on behalf of the Subsidiaries, Huione Group is itself part of “a network of people who engage as a business in facilitating the transfer of money.” Furthermore, through Huione Group's apparent control of the Subsidiaries (each of which is itself a money transmitter, and through Huione Group's coordination of the Subsidiaries' business activities such that they form a self-contained ecosystem of exchange, payment, and market services), Huione Group is engaged as a business in the transmission of value that substitutes for currency. Accordingly, FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that Huione Group is a financial institution as defined by the BSA and as that term is used in section 311.
Haowang Guarantee describes itself as “a professional e-commerce platform that provides users with virtual digital products and transaction services . . . [that] does not participate in nor understand the specific business of the customer. . . . Huione cannot verify or guarantee the process of funds or goods.”
Chainalysis, a separate blockchain analytics company, found similar results. In its 2024 Crypto Crime Mid-year Update Report, it determined that Haowang Guarantee operates as a peer-to-peer marketplace that connects buyers and sellers and facilitates transactions.
In addition, Elliptic reports that Haowang Guarantee provides money laundering services to criminal organizations, helping them transfer the proceeds of investment frauds and other cyber scams to the legitimate banking sector undetected.
As of January 2025, Huione Pay PLC was registered as a payment services institution with the National Bank of Cambodia.
Huione Pay PLC offers its customers the ability to trade CVC on different blockchains, and to convert CVC to or from various fiat currencies.
Huione Crypto provides CVC trading services through its “Huione Exchange” brand, which it owns and operates. Huione Exchange provides a platform for its customers to trade CVC using either its “peer to peer” or “centrali[z]ed exchange platform.”
Based on publicly available information, Huione Group is operated by a Cambodian person, from Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Haowang Guarantee operates Telegram-based marketplace that allows its customers to buy and sell goods and services, relying on other Huione Group services and infrastructure to execute the exchanges. Haowang Guarantee appears to serve, in significant part, fraudsters based in Southeast Asia. FinCEN assesses that Haowang Guarantee deliberately obfuscates its location in order to shield its enterprise and customers from law enforcement. Haowang Guarantee is integrated into Huione Group's operations and is apparently subject to Huione Group's control. FinCEN assesses that it is operated from Cambodia and Haowang Guarantee advertises job opportunities based in Phnom Phen, Cambodia. Accordingly, FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist to conclude that Haowang Guarantee is operated from and located in Cambodia and thus operates outside of the United States.
Huione Pay PLC operates eight Cambodian domestic branch locations, located in Battambang, Phnom Penh, Poipet, Siem Reap, and Sihanoukville.
Huione Crypto, under the name Huione Crypto Spółka Z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością, is registered in Poland.
Regardless of this distinction, FinCEN will discuss Huione Crypto as a related, but distinct subsidiary of Huione Group. Huione Crypto advertises jobs in Phnom Penh, Cambodia indicating it is likely
The most evidence of activity in the United States by Huione Group or the Subsidiaries are three MSB registrations
Based on the foregoing, FinCEN assesses that Huione Group and the Subsidiaries are predominately operated from and located in Cambodia, with a limited connection—a corporate registration—to Poland. While the three MSB registrations by Huione Crypto, Huione Pay Inc., and Huione LTD suggest that Huione Group may intend to expand its business to the United States in the future, as of the date of this NPRM, FinCEN is not aware of any physical presence by Huione Group or the Subsidiaries in the United States or any substantial business with customers in the United States.
Accordingly, FinCEN finds that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Huione Group and the Subsidiaries are foreign financial institutions that operate outside the United States.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318A(a)(1), FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that Huione Group
Under section 311, in deciding to apply one or more special measures, FinCEN may consider the extent to which the financial institution is “used to facilitate or promote money laundering” including “any money laundering activity by organized criminal groups, international terrorists, or entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or missiles.”
DPRK-affiliated actors have extensively used the Huione Group to launder stolen CVC for the benefit of the DPRK government and in support of DPRK's WMD and ballistic missile programs, in violation of U.S. and multilateral sanctions programs, including United Nation Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). The United States has consistently taken measures to counter DPRK's abuse of CVC and protect the United States from DPRK's illicit financial activity.
In the same March 2024 report, the UN POE noted it was investigating 58 suspected cyberattacks by DPRK's Reconnaissance General Bureau
Despite the 2023 FBI alert and other public reporting, Huione Group has continued to receive and process these illicit proceeds. There is wide reporting that Huione Group has received stolen CVC from multiple heists linked to DPRK actors, namely the Lazarus Group.
FinCEN conducted blockchain analysis, using commercially available blockchain analytic software, of flows of CVC associated with several heists carried out by DPRK. This analysis identified that Huione Group received a combined total of approximately USD 2.6 million worth of CVC from the June 2, 2023 Atomic Wallet heist and the June 22, 2023 Coinspaid
On multiple occasions between 2022 and 2024, a DPRK national with deep ties to the RGB, DPRK's primary foreign intelligence organization, worked with Huione Pay PLC officials to transfer CVC and fiat currency. FinCEN assesses that senior Huione Pay PLC leadership was aware of the individual's affiliation with DPRK. This DPRK national maintained personal relationships with multiple Huione Pay PLC officials and regularly met in person with at least one of these officials. In late 2023, the DPRK national worked with Huione Pay PLC officials to convert CVC into fiat currency and subsequently transfer fiat currency to an associate. In total, the DPRK national transferred CVC values at tens of thousands USD to the Huione Pay PLC official. In mid-2023, the DPRK national also planned to remit USD internationally to Hong Kong and sought Huione Pay PLC officials help to do so.
Given the opacity of Huione Group and the inherent limitation of blockchain analytics, FinCEN is largely unable to determine what DPRK actors do with the CVC after they send it to Huione Group. However, given the close connection between Huione Pay PLC officials and DPRK nationals with close ties to DPRK's RGB, FinCEN assesses DPRK most likely uses Huione Group to convert CVC to fiat currencies.
Huione Group also has significant exposure to, and has facilitated transactions associated with suspected fraud activity, including CVC investment scams, also referred to as pig-butchering. FinCEN assesses that Huione Group's extensive CVC services and its online marketplace, Haowang Guarantee, has made Huione Group, a “one stop shop” for criminals to launder CVC obtained through illicit activities, and ultimately convert it to fiat currency.
In 2023, FinCEN published an alert on the “Pig Butchering” CVC investment scams.
Once trust or a relationship has been established, the scammer will introduce the victim to a supposedly lucrative investment opportunity in CVC and direct them to use CVC investment websites or applications designed to appear legitimate, but are instead fraudulent and ultimately controlled or manipulated by the scammer. When a victim's pace of investment slows or stops, the scammer will use even more aggressive tactics to extract any final payments. The scammer may present the victim with supposed losses on the investment and encourage them to make up the difference through additional deposits. If the victim attempts to withdraw their investment, the scammer may demand that the victim pay purported taxes or early withdrawal fees. Once the victim is unable or unwilling to pay more into the scam, the scammer will abruptly cease communication with the victim, taking the victim's entire investment with them.
Based on FinCEN analysis of non-public information, Huione Group received at least USD 36 million worth of CVC investment scam proceeds since at least August 2021. More broadly, the analysis identified that in the aggregate, inclusive of the cyber scam proceeds, Huione Group received approximately USD 300 million worth of CVC relating to other cyber scams. Despite the limitations noted above, FinCEN assesses that, after illicit actors send CVC to Huione Group, CVC is then converted to fiat currency or different CVC, or withdrawn at a later point to move to a different VASP, as part of the money laundering process.
The risks presented by Huione Group's association with illicit actors and transactions linked to illicit activity are compounded by either an absence of, or ineffective, AML/KYC policies and procedures among Huione Group's components, as well as recent changes that have served to obfuscate Huione Group's involvement in illicit activity. For example, in July 2024, Huione Group was the subject of reporting by several blockchain analytic firms describing the use of its various services by TCOs for scam activity, including those offered by Haowang Guarantee.
Neither Huione Pay PLC nor Haowang Guarantee have published AML/KYC policies.
Despite this, and as described in greater detail in section IV. A.1-2, since at least August 2021, FinCEN identified—through analysis of non-public information—that Huione Group received at least USD 37 million worth of illicit proceeds from sanctioned entities—including DPRK entities—and at least USD 300 million worth of CVC from various cyber and CVC scam activity. FinCEN's analysis identified that, in the aggregate, Huione Group has received at least USD 4
Huione Group itself has conceded the deficiencies in its AML regime. In a July 2024 media statement, for example, Huione Group stated “our [Know Your Customer] capabilities are now seriously insufficient.”
Further illustrating the money laundering risk posed by Huione Group is the fact that a significant portion of its assessed illicit transactional activity involves CVC, which the National Bank of Cambodia, Huione Group's primary regulator, expressly prohibits. In a 2024 public statement, the National Bank of Cambodia stated that payment firms are “not allowed to deal or trade any cryptocurrencies and digital assets.”
Given the various aggravating factors described above, FinCEN finds that the Huione Group—with its weak and ineffective AML policies, procedures, and controls, provision of services that offer anonymity and an ability to evade sanctions, and development of a stablecoin designed to hinder the ability of law enforcement to recover the proceeds of crime—is being used extensively to facilitate or promote money laundering, in particular by organized criminal groups and entities involved in the proliferation WMD or missiles.
Under section 311 and FinCEN's delegated authority, in deciding to apply one or more special measure, FinCEN may consider the extent to which the financial institutions “are used for legitimate business purposes.”
Huione Group's activity, through these constituent services, indicates some legitimate business transiting the financial institution. However, under the totality of circumstances, FinCEN assesses that the benefits of any legitimate business activities Huione Group conducts are outweighed by the substantial money laundering risks it poses.
Under section 311 and FinCEN's delegated authority, in deciding to apply one or more special measures, FinCEN may consider the extent to such action is “sufficient to ensure,” that the purpose of section 311 “continue[s] to be fulfilled, and to guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes.”
Having found that Huione Group is a financial institution operating outside of the United States and is of primary money laundering concern (particularly regarding its laundering of illicit proceeds from DPRK-affiliated cyber heists and CVC investment scams carried out by TCOs based in Southeast Asia), FinCEN proposes imposing a prohibition on covered financial institutions under special measure five. Special measure five authorizes the Secretary to impose conditions upon the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or payable-through account, if such account “involves” a financial institution of primary money laundering concern.
FinCEN considered the other special measures available under section 311. As discussed further in section IV.E. below, it determined that none of them would appropriately address the risks posed by Huione Group.
In proposing this special measure, FinCEN consulted with representatives and staff of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Secretary of State, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, staff of the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Attorney General.
In addition, FinCEN considered the factors set forth in section 311, as set forth below.
In March 2025, at least one news outlet reported that the National Bank of Cambodia stripped Huione Pay PLC of its banking license.
While FinCEN assesses that the prohibition proposed in this NPRM would place some cost and burden on covered financial institutions, these burdens are neither undue nor inappropriate in view of the threat posed by the illicit activity facilitated by Huione Group. As described above and according to public and non-public information, Huione Group has no direct USD correspondent relationships with U.S. financial institutions and instead, accesses USD through nested corresponding relationships, outside the United States. These accounts may be used for commercial payments, as well as foreign exchange and money markets. Covered financial institutions and transaction partners have ample opportunity to arrange for alternative payment mechanisms in the absence of correspondent banking relationships with Huione Group.
As such, a prohibition on correspondent banking with Huione Group is expected to impose minimal additional compliance costs for covered financial institutions, which would most commonly involve adding Huione Group to existing sanctions and money laundering screening tools. FinCEN assesses that given the risks posed by Huione Group's facilitation of money laundering, the additional burden on covered financial institutions in preventing the opening of correspondent accounts with Huione Group, as well as conducting due diligence on foreign correspondent account holders and notifying them of the prohibition, will be minimal and not undue.
FinCEN assesses that imposing the proposed special measure would have minimal impact upon the international payment, clearance, and settlement system. As a comparatively small financial institution responsible for a nominal amount of transaction volume in the region, Huione Group is not a systemically important financial institution in Cambodia, regionally, or globally. FinCEN views that prohibiting Huione Group's access to U.S. correspondent banking channels would not affect overall cross-border transaction volumes. Further, a prohibition under special measure five would not prevent Huione Group from conducting legitimate business activities in other foreign currencies.
As described above, evidence available to FinCEN demonstrates that Huione Group serves as a significant conduit for money laundering by TCOs engaged in CVC investment scams and DPRK-related actors engaging in CVC heists. Imposing special measure five will: (1) close Huione Group's access to USD; (2) inhibit Huione Group's ability to act as an illicit finance facilitator for DPRK and TCOs engaged in CVC investment scams; and (3) raise awareness of the way illicit actors exploit weaknesses in vulnerable jurisdictions to circumvent sanctions and finance WMD and ballistic missile proliferation.
In assessing the appropriate special measure to impose, FinCEN considered alternatives to a prohibition on the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts, including the imposition of one or more of the first four special measures, or imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts under special measure five. Having considered these alternatives and for the reasons set out below, FinCEN assesses that none of the other special measures available under section 311 would appropriately address the risks posed by Huione Group and the urgent need to prevent it from accessing USD through correspondent banking.
With its public acknowledgements of its failure to address significant AML/KYC deficiencies, Huione Group continues to present a significant money laundering risk, particularly related to DPRK cyber heists and TCO-run scams. Taken as a whole, Huione Group's history of involvement in laundering proceeds of illicit activities, and its creation of an unfreezable stablecoin, presents a heightened risk that Huione Group will continue to be used by illicit actors. A key feature of Huione Group's service offerings includes a marketplace to sell items that enable CVC investment scams, and money laundering services to launder the proceeds of the scams. Huione Group serves as a significant node of the money laundering ecosystem that enables criminals to both obtain necessary items to carry out various crimes, and the services to launder the proceeds of those crimes.
Because of the nature, extent, and purpose of the obfuscation engaged in by Huione Group, any special measure
FinCEN similarly assesses that merely imposing conditions under special measure five would be inadequate to address the risks posed by Huione Group's activities. Special measure five enables FinCEN to impose conditions as an alternative to a prohibition on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts.
In sum, FinCEN assesses that any condition or additional recordkeeping or reporting requirement would be an ineffective measure to safeguard the U.S. financial system from the illicit behavior facilitated by Huione Group. Such measures would not prevent Huione Group from accessing the correspondent accounts of U.S. financial institutions, thus leaving the U.S. financial system vulnerable to processing illicit transfers that are likely to finance DPRK's nuclear proliferation, or CVC investment scams, resulting in significant national security and money laundering risk. In addition, no recordkeeping or reporting requirements or conditions would be sufficient to guard against the risks posed by a financial institution that processes transactions that are designed to obscure the transactions' true nature and are ultimately for the benefit of DPRK and TCOs. Therefore, FinCEN has determined that a prohibition on opening or maintaining correspondent banking relationships is the only available special measure available under section 311 that can adequately protect the U.S. financial system from the illicit finance risk posed by Huione Group. For these reasons, and after thorough consideration of alternate measures, FinCEN assesses that no measures short of full prohibition on correspondent or payable-through banking access would be sufficient to address the money laundering risks posed by Huione Group.
The goal of this proposed rule is to combat and deter DPRK-affiliated money laundering and the laundering of proceeds from cyber scams including, CVC investment scams carried out by TCOs through Huione Group, and to prevent Huione Group from using the U.S. financial system to enable its illicit finance behavior.
The term “Huione Group” means all subsidiaries, branches, and offices of Huione Group operating as a financial institution in any jurisdiction outside of the United States, including Haowang Guarantee (formerly known as Huione Guarantee), Huione Pay PLC, and Huione Crypto Spółka Z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością (d/b/a Huione Crypto).
The term “correspondent account” has the same meaning as the definition contained in 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(1)(ii). In the case of a U.S. depository institution, this broad definition includes most types of banking relationships between a U.S. depository institution and a foreign bank that are established to provide regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions, including a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other transaction or asset account, and a credit account or other extension of credit. FinCEN is using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this proposed rule as is established for depository institutions in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act, requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
In the case of securities broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers in commodities, and investment companies that are open-end companies (mutual funds), FinCEN is also using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this proposed rule as was established for these entities in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act, requiring due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
The term “covered financial institution” is defined by reference to 31 CFR 1010.605(e)(1), the same definition used in the BSA rule (31 CFR 1010.610) requiring the establishment of due diligence programs for correspondent accounts for financial institutions. In general, this definition includes the following:
• a bank;
• a broker or dealer in securities;
• a futures commission merchant or an introducing broker in commodities; and
• a mutual fund.
The term “foreign banking institution” means a bank organized under foreign law, or an agency, branch, or office located outside the United States of a bank. The term does not include an agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States of a bank organized under foreign law.
The term “subsidiary” means a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting stock or an otherwise controlling interest is owned by another company.
Section 1010.664(b)(1) of the proposed rule would prohibit covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, Huione Group.
Section 1010.664(b)(2) of the proposed rule would require covered financial institutions to take reasonable steps to not process a transaction for the correspondent account of a foreign banking institution in the United States if such a transaction involves Huione Group. Such reasonable steps are described in 1010.664(b)(3), which sets forth the special due diligence requirements a covered financial institution would be required to take when it knows or has reason to believe that a transaction involves Huione Group.
As a corollary to the prohibition set forth in section 1010.664(b)(1) and (2), section 1010.664(b)(3) of the proposed rule would require covered financial institutions to apply special due diligence to all of their foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against such accounts being used to process transactions involving Huione Group. As part of that special due diligence, covered financial institutions would be required to notify those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institutions know or have reason to believe provide services to Huione Group, that such correspondents may not provide Huione Group with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution. A covered financial institution may satisfy this notification requirement using the following notice:
Notice: Pursuant to U.S. regulations issued under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, see 31 CFR 1010.664, we are prohibited from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, Huione Group. The regulations also require us to notify you that you may not provide Huione Group, including any of its subsidiaries, branches, and offices access to the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution. If we become aware that the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution has processed any transactions involving Huione Group, including any of its subsidiaries, branches, and offices, we will be required to take appropriate steps to prevent such access, including terminating your account.
The purpose of the notice requirement is to aid cooperation with correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving Huione Group from accessing the U.S. financial system. FinCEN does not require or expect a covered financial institution to obtain a certification from any of its correspondent account holders that access will not be provided to comply with this notice requirement.
Methods of compliance with the notice requirement could include, for example, transmitting a notice by mail, fax, or email. The notice should be transmitted whenever a covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe that a foreign correspondent account holder provides services to Huione Group.
Special due diligence also includes implementing risk-based procedures designed to identify any use of correspondent accounts to process transactions involving Huione Group. A covered financial institution would be expected to apply an appropriate screening mechanism to identify a funds transfer order that on its face listed Huione Group as the financial institution of the originator or beneficiary, or otherwise referenced Huione Group in a manner detectable under the financial institution's normal screening mechanisms. An appropriate screening mechanism could be the mechanisms used by a covered financial institution to comply with various legal requirements, such as commercially available software programs used to comply with the economic sanctions programs administered by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's OFAC.
Section 1010.664(b)(4) of the proposed rule would clarify that the proposed rule does not impose any reporting requirement upon any covered financial institution that is not otherwise required by applicable law or regulation. A covered financial institution must, however, document its compliance with the notification requirement described above in section 1010.664(b)(3).
FinCEN is requesting comments for 30 days after the publication of this NPRM. Given Huione Group's consistent and longstanding ties to facilitating transactions for DPRK proliferation finance and cyber scams including CVC investment scams, and its track record of facilitating and promoting money laundering in support of DPRK and TCOs' illicit activity, FinCEN assesses that a 30-day comment period for this NPRM strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring sufficient time for notice to the public and opportunity for comment on the proposed rule, while minimizing undue risk posed to the U.S. financial system in processing illicit transfers that are likely to finance DPRK WMD proliferation, funds derived from cyber scams, including CVC investment scams carried out by TCOs, and other illicit activity. FinCEN invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, including the following specific matters:
1. FinCEN's proposal of a prohibition under the fifth special measure under 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b), as opposed to imposing special measures one through four or imposing conditions under the fifth special measure;
2. The form and scope of the notice to certain correspondent account holders that would be required under the rule; and
3. The appropriate scope of the due diligence requirements in this proposed rule.
FinCEN has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
As discussed above, the intended effects of the imposition of special measure five to Huione Group are twofold. The rule is expected to: (1) combat and deter money laundering in facilitation of proliferation financing associate with Huione Group; and (2) prevent Huione Group from using the U.S. financial system to enable its illicit finance behavior. In the analysis below, FinCEN discusses the economic effects that are expected to accompany adoption of the rule as proposed and assesses such expectations in more granular detail. This discussion includes an explanation of how FinCEN's assumptions and methodological choices have influenced FinCEN's conclusions. The public is invited to comment on all aspects of FinCEN's practice.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory impact analysis is not required.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” (IRFA) that will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.”
Covered financial institutions would also be required to take reasonable measures to detect use of their correspondent accounts to process transactions involving Huione Group. All U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, currently must comply with OFAC sanctions, and U.S. financial institutions generally have suspicious activity reporting requirements and systems in place to screen transactions to comply with OFAC sanctions and section 311 special measures administered by FinCEN. The systems that U.S. financial institutions have in place to comply with these requirements can easily be modified to adapt to this proposed rule. Thus, the special due diligence that would be required under the proposed rule—
FinCEN invites comments from members of the public who believe there would be a significant economic impact on small entities from the imposition of a prohibition under the fifth special measure regarding Huione Group.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
FinCEN has determined that this proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of an annual USD 100 million or more, adjusted for inflation (USD 188.9 million).
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements, referred to by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a collection of information, contained in this proposed rule will be submitted by FinCEN to the OMB for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
The provisions in this proposed rule pertaining to the collection of information can be found in sections 1010.664(b)(3)(i)(A) and 1010.664(b)(4). The notification requirement in section
Imposing special measure five requirements as described in this proposed rule is expected to result in a new, incremental recordkeeping burden on certain covered financial institutions as described above. Each anticipated component of this is outlined below.
Each affected covered financial institution is expected to incur a recordkeeping burden associated with preparing and retaining the materials necessary to demonstrate compliance with the proposed requirements. This is expected to include records related to:
B. Documenting the reasonable steps the financial institution undertakes to ensure no transactions involving Huione Group are processed for a foreign correspondent account, including:
1. Any investigative activities undertaken when the financial institution knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account has been or is being used to process transactions involving Huione Group.
2. Any subsequent activities undertaken to prevent such access, including, where necessary, termination of the correspondent account.
C. Notifying, and documenting that the financial institution has provided notice to, foreign correspondent account holders that the financial institution knows or has reason to believe provide services to Huione Group, that such correspondents may not provide Huione Group with access to the correspondent account maintained at the financial institution.
D. Documenting the reasonable steps it took with respect to special due diligence requirements, including but not limited to, the reasoning that informed decisions to adopt (or not adopt) new measures adding to its existing risk-based approach, and those new measures, if adopted.
The estimated average annual burden associated with the collection of information in this proposed rule is, in total, one business day, or eight hours per affected financial institution.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Crime, Foreign banking, Terrorism.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FinCEN proposes amending 31 CFR part 1010 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5336; title III, sec. 314, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 2006, Pub. L. 114-41, 129 Stat. 458-459; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; sec. 6403, Pub. L. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(A) Notifying those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe provide services to Huione Group that such correspondents may not provide Huione Group with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution; and
(B) Taking reasonable steps to identify any use of its foreign correspondent accounts by Huione Group, to the extent that such use can be determined from transactional records maintained in the covered financial institution's normal course of business.
(ii) A covered financial institution shall take a risk-based approach when deciding what, if any, other due diligence measures it reasonably must adopt to guard against the use of its foreign correspondent accounts to process transactions involving Huione Group.
(iii) A covered financial institution that knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account has been or is being used to process transactions involving Huione Group shall take all appropriate steps to further investigate and prevent such access, including the notification of its correspondent account holder under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section and, where necessary, termination of the correspondent account.
(4)
(ii) Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section shall require a covered financial institution to report any information not otherwise required to be reported by law or regulation.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential amendments to the pipeline safety regulations governing liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Comments on this ANPRM must be submitted by July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number PHMSA-2019-0091 using any of the following methods:
Comments are posted without changes or edits to
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities for amendment of its regulations governing the siting, design, installation, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of LNG facilities at 49 CFR part 193. Those requirements have not been substantially revised for over two decades. In the years since, the U.S. LNG industry has become truly global in scale and geopolitical importance; the sophistication of technology and operating practices within LNG facilities regulated by PHMSA have similarly evolved at a breakneck pace. In recognition of these developments, Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and industry stakeholders have repeatedly called on PHMSA to update its part 193 regulations to better align with current technologies, operational best practices, and lessons learned. In response to these recommendations and mandates, PHMSA now solicits stakeholder feedback on potential amendments to its part 193 LNG facility requirements that will inform a forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding.
PHMSA's last significant amendments to its part 193 regulations governing LNG facilities date to 2004.
In the interim, the U.S. LNG industry has emerged as a driver of the U.S. domestic economy, a lynchpin of international commerce, and a critical instrument for advancing U.S. strategic interests. A recent study predicts the U.S. LNG industry over the next 16 years will contribute around $1.3 trillion to U.S. Gross Domestic Product—including more than $2.5 trillion in total revenues for U.S. businesses, $165 billion in Federal and State tax revenues, more than $500 billion in labor income, and support an average of nearly a half-million U.S. jobs annually.
Meanwhile, the United States is the largest international exporter of LNG, is the source of roughly 22% of worldwide LNG supply, and is a critical supplier to energy markets in Europe and Asia (the top destinations for U.S. LNG exports). U.S. LNG exports play an outsized role in advancing U.S. strategic interests, improving the nation's trade balance, and supporting the energy needs of resource-constrained strategic allies.
U.S. LNG facility technologies and operations have evolved alongside the expansion and growing importance of the industry. When PHMSA issued its last major updates to the part 193 regulations in 2004, most LNG facilities regulated by PHMSA were relatively small facilities focused on the U.S. domestic market: LNG import facilities and “peak-shaving” facilities supporting local gas distribution companies. But even as those LNG facilities remain common, there is increasing interest within the U.S. domestic LNG market for small-scale or mobile or temporary LNG facilities supporting novel applications, including (but not limited to): marine bunkering for fueling maritime vessels; trucking fleet transportation fueling; alternative gas supply for pipeline testing activity; off-grid electric power and heat generation; and electric power continuity for data centers. At the same time, the re-orientation of the U.S. LNG industry toward international markets has resulted in the construction of a number of massive, capital-intensive, and increasingly sophisticated LNG export terminals. The LNG industry has compiled and memorialized the lessons learned and best practices in designing, constructing, and operating each of these types of LNG facilities over the last two decades in consensus industry standards—culminating in the latest edition of NFPA 59A that was published in 2023.
Recognizing that PHMSA regulations have not kept pace with technological innovation and best practices in the LNG industry, policymakers and other stakeholders have repeatedly called on PHMSA to update its part 193 regulations. GAO in 2020 criticized PHMSA for not having conducted a standards-specific review of its part 193 regulations for nearly two decades and recommended that PHMSA consider incorporating by reference more recent editions of consensus industry standards such as NFPA 59A.
Meanwhile, President Trump in his first term issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13868 “Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth,” directing PHMSA to issue a final rule updating its part 193 regulations no later than May 2020.
PHMSA has also received petitions for rulemaking and other requests from industry trade groups calling on PHMSA to update its part 193 regulations to address various alleged shortcomings, including incorporating by reference more recent editions of NFPA 59A.
To develop an NPRM responding to the above recommendations and mandates, PHMSA is soliciting stakeholder feedback on, among other things: (1) the topics listed in section III below; (2) potential amendments to its part 193 LNG facility requirements, including any amendments identified by stakeholders; (3) the appropriateness of those amendments for different types of LNG facilities (including export terminals and peak-shaving facilities); (4) the incremental compliance costs and benefits (including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments; and (5) the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of those potential amendments. PHMSA plans to hold a public meeting in the near future to supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM.
With respect to incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including data sources, assumptions (
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the extent practicable.
A. PHMSA's enabling statute at 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(14) defines an LNG facility subject to PHMSA's authority as “a gas pipeline facility used for transporting or storing liquefied natural gas, or for liquefied natural gas conversion, in interstate or foreign commerce.” Excluded from this definition is “any part of a structure or equipment located in navigable waters.”
1. What regulatory amendments could improve or clarify the applicability of PHMSA's part 193 regulations to LNG facilities under its statutory authority? Should PHMSA's regulations be amended to clarify the boundaries of its regulatory authority with respect to some or all categories of LNG facilities? Which provisions (including regulatory definitions) merit revision and how should they be modified?
2. For LNG facilities over which PHMSA shares regulatory authority with another Federal agency, should PHMSA consider an LNG facility's compliance with analogous regulatory requirements or guidance issued by those other agencies in evaluating compliance with existing part 193 requirements or (should they be incorporated by reference into part 193 regulations) NFPA 59A-2023? Please identify those analogous requirements of PHMSA and other Federal agencies.
B. The term “LNG facility” is defined in PHMSA's enabling statute at 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(14) and PHMSA implementing regulations at 49 CFR 193.2007. LNG facilities subject to part 193 requirements include “baseload” facilities, “peak-shaver” facilities, “temporary” or “mobile” LNG facilities, and “satellite” LNG facilities.
1. How many of each of these categories of LNG facilities are projected to come into existence over the next two decades? What function(s) do they each currently serve in the interstate natural gas transportation system, and are there any emerging applications for those facilities?
2. Are there material differences in the characteristics (
C. LNG facility reporting requirements are set forth at 49 CFR 193.2011.
1. Is there information required in the annual, incident, and safety related condition reports required by PHMSA regulations with limited or no safety value any of the categories of part 193-regulated LNG facilities?
2. Is there information required in the reports that is duplicative with the information required to be submitted to other State or Federal regulatory authorities?
3. What incremental, per-unit costs and benefits may arise from amending § 193.2011 to clarify that safety-related condition reporting would be required not only for “in-service” LNG facilities, but also safety-related conditions that occur during commissioning and initial start-up?
D. Current part 193 regulations incorporate much of NFPA 59A-2001's provisions pertinent to LNG facility siting (§ 193.2051), design (§ 193.2101(a)), construction (§ 193.2301), equipment (§ 193.2401), and fire protection (§ 193.2801).
1. Stakeholders have asserted that compliance with provisions of NFPA 59A-2001 has become increasingly impracticable as vendors and the industry itself employ more recent consensus industry standards in their activities. Please describe noteworthy examples of tension between NFPA 59A-2001 provisions referenced in current PHMSA regulations and more recent consensus industry standards. What incremental, per-unit costs (including, but not limited to, those arising from personnel having to compare operator practices with provisions of NFPA 59A-2001 referenced in current PHMSA regulations) arise from operators having to navigate those tensions?
2. Should PHMSA consider a narrow rulemaking to update only the NFPA 59A standard to the 2023 edition and pursuing a broader part 193 update afterward? What would the incremental costs and benefits be of an update of the NFPA 59A standard to 2023?
3. To what extent do different categories of LNG facility operators generally comply with other NFPA 59A-2001 provisions (
4. To what extent do different categories of LNG facility operators generally comply with provisions in more recent editions of NFPA 59A? If so, which edition (
5. Part 193 regulations in several places broadly incorporate pertinent NFPA 59A-2001 requirements provided they do not conflict with specific part 193 provisions; such language appears in Subparts B (“Siting”), C (“Design”), D (“Construction”), E (“Equipment”), and I (“Fire Protection). What incremental, per-unit costs and benefits would arise from substituting NFPA 59A-2023 provisions for the current reference to NFPA 59A-2001 provisions (or superseding part 193 provisions) in each of those subparts of part 193? Should PHMSA exclude some NFPA 59A-2023 provisions from incorporation by reference in those subparts? To which categories of LNG facilities should any NFPA 59A-2023 provisions pertinent to those subparts apply?
6. What incremental, per-unit costs and benefits would arise should PHMSA propose to incorporate by reference the entirety of NFPA 59A-2023? Please provide those estimated, incremental costs and benefits on a per-chapter basis where possible, highlighting provisions in each NFPA 59A-2023 chapter for which compliance would be particularly burdensome or costly for particular categories of LNG facility operators.
7. Which mandatory provisions of NFPA 59A-2023 should be made permissive if incorporated into the PHMSA's part 193 regulations? Are there certain mandatory elements of NFPA 59A-2023 that should remain mandatory for some categories of LNG facilities but not others? Should any non-mandatory provisions in NFPA 59A-2023 be mandatory, and what incremental, per-unit costs and benefits would arise?
8. What incremental, per-unit costs and benefits would arise from PHMSA integrating NFPA 59A-2023's references to “hazardous fluid” alongside references to “LNG” and “natural gas” throughout part 193?
9. What incremental, per-unit costs and benefits would arise in connection with the incorporation by reference in part 193 of NFPA 59A-2023 chapter 14 requirements governing “mobile and temporary LNG facilities”? Are there particular requirements in NFPA 59A-2023 chapter 14 that would entail noteworthy incremental, per-unit compliance costs and benefits?
10. Are the criteria for “stationary, small-scale LNG facilities” in paragraph 17.1.2 of NFPA 59A-2023 appropriate? What would be the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits of adopting these provisions relative to current part 193 requirements (including referenced provisions in NFPA 59A-2001)? Are there particular requirements in NFPA 59A-2023 pertinent to small-scale LNG facilities that would lead to incremental, per-unit costs and benefits?
11. What would be the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits to operators from installing dikes around American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)-compliant single-walled containers and membrane-containment tank systems? How many single-walled ASME containers, single-walled ASME vessels, and membrane-containment tank systems would different categories of LNG facilities have on average?
12. What are the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits to operators of different categories of LNG facilities from utilizing the design spill parameters for pipe-in-pipe systems in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) #DS2(C) within PHMSA guidance for LNG facilities?
13. What would be the initial and annual recurring incremental, per-unit costs and benefits to operators from generation and implementation of a robust mechanical and electrical lockout program in different categories of LNG facilities?
14. Are there any PHMSA interpretations of its part 193 regulations
E. GAO in its August 2020 report identified consensus industry standards other than NFPA 59A listed in § 193.2013 and currently incorporated by reference throughout PHMSA's part 193 regulations meriting updating to more recent editions.
1. Please describe current operator compliance strategies with respect to those standards. Do some or all operators generally comply with the older editions currently referenced in part 193 regulations, more recent editions, or both? If operators comply with a more recent edition, which one—the latest edition or some intermediate edition? If some operators but not others comply with each of those updated standards, are there certain categories of LNG facilities that generally comply with more recent standards?
2. To which edition of each standard should PHMSA update its part 193 regulations? Please provide technical, safety, and economic reasons for updating part 193 regulations to reference a particular edition of each standard.
3. Please estimate any incremental, per-unit costs and benefits that would arise from updating each of those standards to a more recent standard. Are there particular provisions of those standards that entail noteworthy incremental costs and benefits?
4. Are there specific provisions or sections in those updated editions that PHMSA should exclude when incorporating those standards by reference with respect to some or all part 193-regulated LNG facilities? Please provide the technical, safety, and economic reasons for such an exclusion.
5. Are there any updates in development for consensus industry standards currently incorporated by reference in part 193 regulations that could merit inclusion in this rulemaking? Please provide the technical, safety, and economic reasons for inclusion of those forthcoming updates.
F. Are there any consensus industry standards pertinent to part 193-regulated LNG facilities that PHMSA should consider incorporating by reference for the first time?
1. Please identify any such standards, noting the edition to be incorporated by reference and any portions of those standards that should be excluded from such incorporation, along with any technical, safety, and economic justification.
2. Which provisions of part 193 should reference those standards?
3. Please estimate any incremental, per-unit costs and benefits that would arise from incorporating by reference standard. Are there particular provisions of those standards that entail noteworthy incremental costs and benefits?
G. Section 110 of the PIPES Act of 2020 requires PHMSA to update part 193 operating and maintenance standards for “large-scale” LNG facilities (other than peak shaving facilities) to provide for a “risk-based regulatory approach” that PHMSA ensures will achieve an equivalent level of safety to current, prescriptive part 193 operating and maintenance standards.
1. What is the appropriate metric and threshold for determining whether an LNG facility is a large-scale LNG facility and why is it appropriate?
2. For which provisions of part 193, subparts F (Operations) and G (Maintenance) should a risk-based regulatory approach provide an alternative? What would be the incremental, per-unit cost benefits from substitution of a risk-based regulatory approach, estimated for each of those part 193, subparts F and G provisions?
3. Are there particular regulatory or conceptual frameworks or consensus industry standards or protocols that are appropriate for use in designing implementation plans for an alternative risk-based regulatory approach? Are those frameworks or consensus industry standards or protocols employed by “large-scale LNG facilities—and if so, how widely? Are such frameworks or standards employed voluntarily or pursuant to legal requirements (
4. What should be the relationship between an LNG facility implementation plan and the Emergency Response Plan required under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b-1)?
5. What should be the required content and information in LNG facility implementation plans submitted to PHMSA? What would be the incremental, per-unit unit cost for development of implementation plans?
6. What would be the annual incremental, per-unit costs for operators' execution of implementation plans? Please provide such an estimate for each of the elements (
7. What processes should PHMSA employ in reviewing and evaluating operator submissions? Are there models for those processes elsewhere in current PHMSA regulations? If so, how are those models appropriate for use in connection with LNG facility implementation plans? Are there elements of those models that would be inappropriate for use in connection with LNG facility implementation plans?
8. What factors should inform PHMSA's review of LNG facility implementation plans?
H. Section II of this ANPRM identifies Executive Orders directing PHMSA and other agencies to reduce regulatory burdens on the U.S. energy industry.
1. Are there current aspects of PHMSA regulations that are particularly burdensome on the ability of industry to operate LNG facilities that PHMSA should consider amending or rescinding?
2. Are there areas that PHMSA could add regulatory text that would reduce costs on operators without reducing safety outcomes?
3. Which aspects of current PHMSA regulations do operators find outdated or unnecessary because industry practice or existing industry guidelines are an equivalent or better standard both for cost savings and safety outcomes?
4. How can PHMSA best design a rulemaking to update its part 193 regulations for LNG facilities to be deregulatory and lead to cost savings for the industry?
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Puerto Rico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by virtual web conference on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. Atlantic Time/Eastern Time. The purpose is to continue discussion on their project on the civil rights impacts of the Insular Cases in Puerto Rico.
May 21, 2025, Wednesday, at 3:30 p.m. Atlantic Time/Eastern Time.
Meeting will be held via Zoom.
Email Victoria Moreno, Designated Federal Officer at
This meeting will take place in English. The public may join this committee meeting through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Tight Line Composites LLC (Tight Line) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Earth City, Missouri, within FTZ 102. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 21, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and the specific finished product described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is carbon fiber profiles (duty rate is duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include carbon fiber tow, epoxy resin, and woven nylon 6,6 peel ply fabric (in widths not exceeding 300mm) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.1%). The request indicates that certain materials/components may be subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that Epoxy Resin is subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) investigation if imported from China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, or Thailand. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Luke Engan at
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of partially closed meeting.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (TRANSTAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal officials on matters related to export control policies; the TRANSTAC will meet to review and discuss these matters. The meeting will be partially closed to the public pursuant to the exemptions under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
The meeting will be held on May 21, 2025, from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time (all times are Eastern Time). The open session will start at 9:30 a.m. and end at approximately 10:30 a.m. The closed session will start at approximately 10:30 a.m. and end no later than 2:00 p.m. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
The meeting will be held in Room 3884 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC (enter through the Main Entrance on 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues). The open session will be accessible via teleconference.
Kevin Coyne, Committee Liaison Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (TRANSTAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) and other Federal officials and agencies with respect to actions designed to carry out the policy set forth in section 1752 of the Export Control Reform Act. The purpose of the meeting is to have the TRANSTAC members and U.S. Government representatives mutually review the updated technical data and policy-driving information that has been gathered.
The open session will include working group reports, open business discussions, and industry presentations. The closed session will include discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the open meeting and public participation requirements found in sections 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. Registration in advance is required to receive the meeting invite for virtual attendance. Individuals interested in participating virtually should contact
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the open session should contact
To the extent that time permits during the open session, members of the public may present oral statements to the TRANSTAC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the TRANSTAC members, the TRANSTAC suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting via email to
A Senior Advisor, performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(1) and 1009(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. The exemption is authorized by section 1009(d) of the FACA, which permits the closure of advisory committee meetings, or portions thereof, if the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines such meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)). In this case, the applicable provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) are subsection 552b(c)(4), which permits closure to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential, and subsection 552b(c)(9)(B), which permits closure to protect information that would be likely to disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The closed session of the meeting will involve committee discussions and guidance regarding U.S. Government strategies and policies.
If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Comments must be submitted by June 30, 2025.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing. All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
All comments should be addressed to Christopher Abbott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Samuel Brummitt, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-7851.
On February 3, 2025, pursuant to section 702(h) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (the Act), Commerce published the quarterly update to the annual listing of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty covering the period July 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024.
Pursuant to section 702(h) of the Act, we hereby provide Commerce's update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period October 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. Commerce will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 5, 2025.
Dana Mermelstein, 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) 481-1391.
On February 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a countervailing duty (CVD) investigation on imports of temporary steel fencing from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce imitated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperation, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On March 4, 2025, the petitioner
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner submitted its request for postponement of the preliminary determination in this investigation 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and stated the reasons for its request. For the reasons stated above, and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated,
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued an order in
Applicable April 28, 2025.
Kristen Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793.
On January 3, 2018, Commerce published the CVD
The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations appealed Commerce's
In its
On April 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) reversed the CIT's August 18, 2021 decision and held that Commerce has the statutory authority to adopt the CVD expedited review process, and remanded for further proceedings necessitated by its holding that such statutory authority exists.
On April 22, 2024, the CIT sustained, in part, and remanded, in part, certain claims concerning Commerce's
On September 10, 2024, Commerce issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to court remand in
On January 21, 2025, in
On March 10, 2025, Fontaine filed a motion requesting that the CIT sever the consolidated case in Court No. 19-122 and enter judgment on behalf Fontaine in severed Court No. 19-00154.
On March 13, 2025, the CIT granted the motion, ordering that subject entries enjoined under Court No. 19-00154 must be liquidated in accordance with the final court decision, including all appeals, consistent with the
On April 8, 2025, Fontaine filed a motion seeking that Commerce give effect to the CIT's order issued on March 13, 2025, ahead of the conclusion of the appeals period. Specifically, Fontaine requested that the CIT direct Commerce to publish a notice of amended final results, set Fontaine's cash deposit rate to 0.00 percent, exclude Fontaine from the CVD
On April 18, 2025, the CIT granted Fontaine's request for relief, in part. The CIT ordered Commerce to publish amended final results of CVD expedited review with respect to Fontaine that reflect the 0.00 percent cash deposit rate determined for Fontaine in Commerce's remand redetermination. The CIT also held that subject entries enjoined in this litigation should be liquidated in accordance with the CIT's final court decision, including all appeals, consistent with the requirements in section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
On March 13, 2025, the CIT entered final judgment sustaining Commerce's remand redetermination calculating a 0.88 percent,
In accordance with the CIT's April 18, 2025 order, in the event that the CIT's final judgment is not appealed or is upheld on appeal, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate entries enjoined in this action of softwood lumber produced and exported by Fontaine, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 28, 2017, without respect to countervailing duties.
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by the CIT from liquidating certain entries. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during any appeals process. Lastly, subject merchandise that Fontaine exports but does not produce, as well as merchandise Fontaine produces but is exported by another company, remain subject to the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Company Limited (Hoa Phat) had no shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Further, going forward, Hoa Phat will be eligible to participate in the certification program previously established with respect to the countervailing duty (CVD) order on LWRPT from China.
Applicable May 5, 2025.
Rebecca M. Janz, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972.
On September 13, 2024, Commerce published the
From November 18, through November 20, 2024, Commerce conducted an on-site verification of the information submitted on the record of this review by Hoa Phat in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
The merchandise subject to this
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
As no parties commented on the
We continue to find that Hoa Phat is eligible to certify the origin of the HRS that it uses to produce LWRPT in Vietnam and participate in the certification program previously established with respect to the
Consistent with the
Commerce hereby determines that Hoa Phat is eligible to participate in the certification program established in the
Because we have not modified our analysis from the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determinations of circumvention for Vietnam in the
If an importer enters into the United States LWRPT produced in Vietnam and claims that the LWRPT was not produced from China-origin HRS
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2). Because we find that all the suspended entries of LWRPT produced or exported by Hoa Phat during the POR are not subject to the
For LWRPT produced in China, the final results of this review do not alter the previous suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements.
For LWRPT from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat, these final results of review revise the suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions established in the
If the exporter or the importer fails to properly certify that an entry of LWRPT produced by Hoa Phat in Vietnam was not produced using China-origin HRS, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the liquidation of the entry of such LWRPT under CBP case number C-552-915-001 and require a cash deposit for estimated countervailing duties at the rate of 15.28 percent.
These suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to countervailing duties.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction or return 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 destruction or return of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 5, 2025.
Jose Rivera (Mexico) or Ian Riggs (Thailand); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0842 and (202) 482-3810, respectively.
On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from Mexico and Thailand.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On April 22, 2025, the petitioner
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping duty (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR). We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
1. In general, Commerce finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
2. For any company subject to a review, if Commerce determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, Commerce will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, Commerce will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection.
3. Parties are requested to: (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed; and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed.
4. Further, if companies are requested to complete a Quantity and Value Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of a proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete quantity and value data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline
None.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that Commerce conduct an administrative review. For both AD and CVD reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an AD finding or an AD or CVD order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires Commerce to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for Commerce to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party Commerce was unable to locate in prior segments, Commerce will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for Commerce to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
Commerce no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an AD administrative review.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS website at
Commerce will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the final rule titled “
In accordance with the
As mentioned in the
Interested parties have 30 days after the date of this notice to submit new or amended entries of appearance. Commerce will then finalize the annual inquiry service lists five business days thereafter. For ease of administration, please note that Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in a proceeding designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list.
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website at
In the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Company Limited (Hoa Phat) had no shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from the People's Republic of China (China) during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023. Further, going forward, Hoa Phat will be eligible to participate in the certification program previously established with respect to the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on LWRPT from China, and the AD orders on LWRPT from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan.
Applicable May 5, 2025.
Paul Kebker, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2254.
On September 13, 2024, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce conducted this administrative review of the
As no parties commented on the
We continue to find that Hoa Phat is eligible to certify the origin of the HRS that it uses to produce LWRPT in Vietnam, and that this eligibility to certify applies to the
Consistent with the
Commerce hereby determines that Hoa Phat is eligible to participate in the certification program previously established in the
Commerce based its decision to not permit Hoa Phat to certify the origin of the HRS used to produce LWRPT in Vietnam because:
Commerce hereby determines that Hoa Phat is eligible to participate in the certification program because Hoa Phat records the origin of its HRS purchases in its books and records, and Hoa Phat is able to trace through its production processes the origin of the HRS used to produce LWRPT shipped to the United States.
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity,
Because we have not modified our analysis from the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determinations of circumvention for Vietnam in the
If an importer enters into the United States LWRPT produced in Vietnam, and claims that the LWRPT was not produced from China-, Korea-, or Taiwan-origin HRS,
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). All entries of LWRPT from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat and entered into the United States during the POR were suspended under the
For LWRPT produced in China, the final results of this review do not alter the previous suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements.
For LWRPT from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat, these final results of review revise the suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions established in the
If the exporter
If the exporter
If the exporter
If the exporter
These suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD or CVD duties.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction or return 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 destruction or return of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Cook Inlet Salmon Stock Assessment Modeling Workshop will be held in-person and online over two days.
The meeting will be held on Monday, May 19, 2025 through Tuesday, May 20, 2025, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Alaska time.
The meeting will be a hybrid meeting. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute, Royce Room (131), 17190 Point Lena Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801. You can also join online through the link
Diana Stram, Senior Scientist, NPFMC; phone: (907) 271-2809; email:
The workshop objective is to prepare for the 2026 specifications process for the final Cook Inlet Salmon SAFE report. This is a technical workshop to address assessment related feedback from the SSC during the 2024 and 2025 assessment cycles. This includes methodological comments on the Tier designations for all 7 stocks as well as the calculation of the overfishing limit (OFL), the minimum stock size threshold (MSST), acceptable biological catch (ABC) and appropriate buffer levels for these stocks. Additional topics will include the structure of the SAFE report, data needs and availability, potential stock prioritization for future consideration and the development of draft risk tables. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 4, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Tucker Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of DoD's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection for use under Control Number 0704-0250 through August 31, 2025. DoD proposes that OMB approve an extension of the information collection requirement, to expire three years after the approval date.
DoD will consider all comments received by July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0250, using either of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Saleemah McMillan, at 202-308-5383.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites
DoD will consider all comments received by July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0574, using either of the following methods:
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Saleemah McMillan, at 202-308-5383.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee request for nominations.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to request nominations to serve as representatives on the Inland Waterways Users Board (“Board”), sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Board provides independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army and the Congress. The Secretary of the Army recommends its 11 (eleven) representative organizations to the Secretary of Defense for approval. This notice is to solicit nominations for eleven (11) appointments for terms that will begin by January 30, 2026. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's website at
Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Mr. Paul D. Clouse, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Inland Waterways Users Board, CEIWR-NDC, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building (Room H221), Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868; by telephone at 202-768-3157; and by email at
Alternatively, contact Mr. Steven D. Riley, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-659-3097; and by email at
The selection, service, and appointment of representative organizations to the Board are covered by provisions of section 302 of Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2251). The substance of those provisions is as follows:
(1) Include the commercial operations of the carrier and/or shipper representative organization being nominated. This commercial operations information will show the actual or estimated ton-miles of each commodity carried or shipped on the inland waterways system in the most recent year (or years), using the waterway regions and commodity categories previously listed. Only ton-miles will be accepted.
(2) State the region(s) to be represented.
(3) State whether the nominated representative organization is a carrier, shipper or both.
(4) Provide the name of an individual to be the principal person representing the organization and information pertaining to their personal qualifications, to include a current within six months biography or resume.
Previous nominations received in response to notices published in the
e.
Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 7, 2025.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kelly Terpak, 202-987-0945.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Advisory Council on Indian Education (NACIE), U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of an open meeting.
This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access or participate in the June 18-19, 2025, virtual meeting of NACIE. This notice provides information about the meeting to members of the public who may be interested in virtually attending the meeting and how to provide written and/or oral comment for the meeting.
The NACIE meeting will be held on June 18, 2025, from 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Eastern Time and June 19, 2025, from 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Eastern Time.
Julian Guerrero, Jr., Designated Federal Official, Office of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Office 4B-116, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 213-3416. Email:
Notice of this meeting is required by section 1009(a)(2) of 5 U.S.C. chapter 10 (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act).
Take notice that on April 15, 2025, Great Basin Gas Transmission Company (Great Basin), P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, filed an application under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for its 2026 Expansion Project (Project). The Project consists of (1) installing approximately 2.32 miles of new 20-inch-diameter steel pipeline loop along Great Basin's Carson Lateral (Wadsworth segment), (2) replacing approximately 2.35 miles of existing 10-inch-diameter steel pipeline with new 20-inch-diameter steel pipeline (Highway segment), and (3) installing and abandoning associated appurtenant facilities, all located in Lyon and Washoe Counties, Nevada. The Project will increase Great Basin's system firm transportation capacity by 8,129 Dekatherms per day in response to growing market demand as requested by two existing shippers in North Nevada and Northern California. Great Basin estimates the total cost of the Project to be $18,884,092 and proposes incremental rates under the Rate Schedule FT-1, 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 Frank J. Maglietti Jr., Vice President/General Manager, Great Basin Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197, by phone at (702) 876-738, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
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 20, 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 20, 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 CP25-209-000 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 (CP25-209-000).
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. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
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 CP25-209-000 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 CP25-209-000.
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: Frank J. Maglietti Jr., Vice President/General Manager, Great Basin Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 94197, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-4197 or by email (with a link to the 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
On November 8, 2024, GridLiance Heartland LLC (GridLiance Heartland)
GridLiance Heartland states that it no longer retains operational control over any of its transmission facilities and no longer provides transmission service for any transmission lines under the GridLiance Heartland OATT.
Answers to the motion must be filed by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.
Take notice that on April 28, 2025, Southwestern Power Administration submitted a tariff filing 300.1: 2023 Integrated System Rate Schedule Filing to be effective June 1, 2025.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link 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
On May 1, 2017, and materially amended on December 7, 2020, Great River Hydro, LLC filed applications for new major licenses to operate its 32.4-megawatt (MW) Vernon Hydroelectric Project (Vernon Project; FERC No. 1904), 40.8-MW Bellows Falls Hydroelectric Project (Bellows Falls Project; FERC No. 1855), and 35.6-MW Wilder Hydroelectric Project (Wilder Project; FERC No. 1892) (collectively, projects). On June 5, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the effects of relicensing the projects. The notice included an anticipated schedule for issuing the draft and final EIS. By notice issued November 21, 2024, Commission staff revised the procedural schedule for completing the draft and final EIS.
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the draft and final EIS. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131 or
On April 29, 2016, and materially amended on December 4, 2020, FirstLight MA Hydro LLC and Northfield Mountain LLC, respectively, filed applications for new major licenses to operate the 62.0-megawatt (MW) Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project (Turners Falls Project; FERC No. 1889) and 1,166.8-MW Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Northfield Mountain Project; FERC No. 2485) (collectively, projects). On June 5, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental
By this notice, Commission staff is updating the procedural schedule for completing the draft and final EIS. The revised schedule is shown below. Further revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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 organization, 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 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 organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (Renewal)”, EPA ICR Number 1695.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0338 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection request as described below. This is a proposed extension of the Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0329, to the EPA: online using
Julian Davis, Attorney Adviser, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4029; fax number 734-214-4869; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 7, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The FCC Form 602 is comprised of the Main Form containing information regarding the filer and the Schedule A is used to collect ownership data pertaining to the Disclosable Interest Holder(s). Each Disclosable Interest Holder will have a separate Schedule A.
Thus, a filer will submit its FCC Form 602 with multiple copies of Schedule A, as necessary, to list each Disclosable Interest Holder and associated information.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 7, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than June 4, 2025.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), with minor changes to the Multistate Employer Registration form, for an additional three years. The current OMB approval expires July 31, 2025.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by June 4, 2025.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection helps support implementation of FDA's Generic Drug User Fee Program (GDUFA), most recently reauthorized September 30, 2022. It includes information collections discussed in the document, “GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals And Program Enhancements Fiscal Years 2023-2027,” commonly referred to as the “Goals Letter” or “Commitment Letter.” The Commitment Letter represents the product of FDA discussions with the regulated industry and public stakeholders, as mandated by Congress. The Goals Letter identifies current GDUFA program objectives and general procedures for communicating with FDA. Agency guidance, as outlined in the Goals Letter, are utilized in the information collection. All Agency guidance documents are issued consistent with our Good Guidance Practice regulations (21 CFR 10.115), which provide for public comment at any time, as well as regulatory authority found in 21 CFR 314.445 (Guidance documents), currently approved in OMB control number 0910-0001.
The information collection also includes Form FDA 3974, the Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet and associated instructions, available for download at
As we communicate on our website, potential applicants are encouraged to contact the FDA Generic Drugs Program with questions at any point in their development and application preparation processes. We have revised the information collection to include the submission of “controlled correspondence” within the scope of activity, including covered product authorizations (CPAs) provided for under the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2019 (CREATES Act) (Pub. L. 116-94). Historically, and under the terms of the GDUFA, a controlled correspondence may be submitted by or on behalf of a generic drug manufacturer or related industry prior to submitting an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). To provide respondents with assistance regarding the submission of controlled correspondence, we continue to develop and issue topic-specific Agency guidance, including the following documents:
• Controlled Correspondence Related to Generic Drug Development (Controlled Correspondence Guidance) (
• Product-Specific Guidance Meetings Between FDA and ANDA Applicants Under GDUFA (
• Formal Meetings Between FDA and ANDA Applicants of Complex Products Under GDUFA (
• Competitive Generic Therapies Guidance (
• Cover Letter Attachments for Controlled Correspondences and ANDA Submissions (
• How to Obtain Covered Product Authorization (
Each guidance document may be downloaded from our website where we maintain a searchable database at
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimated is based on available Agency data. Our burden estimate reflects an overall increase attributable to the inclusion of controlled correspondence and new generic drug product CPA requests.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is withdrawing two final guidances entitled “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Disease Agents Associated with Sepsis by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” and “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidances by July 7, 2025 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft guidances before it begins work on the final version of the guidances.
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidances to the Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidances may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the
Irma Sison, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8190.
FDA is announcing the availability of two draft guidances, “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Disease Agents Associated with Sepsis by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” and “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of
FDA is withdrawing the final guidances “Recommendations To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Disease Agents Associated with Sepsis by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” and “Recommendations To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of
The draft guidance entitled “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Disease Agents Associated with Sepsis by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” provides establishments making donor eligibility determinations with recommendations to reduce the risk of transmission of disease agents associated with sepsis for donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products. This guidance, when finalized, will supersede information regarding sepsis included in the guidance “Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps), Guidance for Industry,” dated August 2007 (August 2007 HCT/P DE Guidance), by updating recommendations for making a donor eligibility determination when screening a donor for clinical evidence of sepsis and clinical signs to consider. The August 2007 HCT/P DE guidance identified sepsis as a relevant communicable disease agent or disease under 21 CFR 1271.3(r)(2).
The draft guidance entitled “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of
FDA is issuing these draft guidances consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). FDA has received comments on the now-withdrawn final guidances issued in January 2025, and the Agency has made certain revisions that have been incorporated into the new draft guidances in response to those comments. The Agency will continue to consider those comments, as well as any comments received on these draft guidances, as we consider next steps. These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Disease Agents Associated with Sepsis by Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” and “Recommendations to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of
As we develop any final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on the applicability of Executive Order 14192, per OMB guidance M-25-20, and in particular, on any costs or cost savings.
While these guidance documents contain no collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR 1271 relating to HCT/Ps, including establishing and maintaining records, investigation and reporting of adverse actions and documentation of methods used in facilities related to HCT/Ps, which includes but is not limited to donor screening, donor testing, and labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0543.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidances at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Address: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0092, Sewage and Graywater Discharge Records for Certain Cruise Vessels Operating on Alaskan Waters; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June 4, 2025.
Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, fax 202-372-8405, or email
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, USCG-2024-0882, and must be received by June 4, 2025.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (89 FR 82248, October 10, 2024) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). We received two submissions to the 60-day Notice that were supportive of our ICR. One commenter also provided specific notes to sections 1 through 4 of our supporting statement. We addressed those notes by updating the supporting statement. No comments concerned our burden estimate. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the burden estimate of the Collection.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted no later than June 4, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
CBP Form I-510 collects information such as the name of the owner, agent, commander officer or master of the vessel or aircraft; the name of the crewmember; the port of arrival; and signature of the guarantor. This form is provided for by 8 CFR 253.1(a) and is accessible at:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 4, 2025. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) provides biometric compare, store, share, and analyze services to DHS and mission partners. In order to serve its mission partners, OBIM is focused on delivering accurate, timely, and high assurance biometric identity information and analysis. To achieve OBIM's overall goals and priorities, OBIM continually works to improve biometric services by keeping up with advancing biometrics in terms of new modalities, capabilities, and safeguarding information. OBIM is constantly investigating new developments to keep up with the speed of relevance and to support DHS operational missions through the development of standards for interagency implementation of biometrics.
Because OBIM is congressionally mandated to manage the operation of the department's primary biometric repository and identification system that is used to identify and verify individuals crossing U.S. borders, it is mandatory for homeland security that the types of biometrics used, the technologies that capture them, and the way that OBIM safeguards them are advancing at a pace that keeps in front of bad actors.
In the continuing appropriations act of 2013, OBIM was created from the former US-VISIT program to administer the DHS biometric database, as authorized by section 7208 of the Intelligence Reform And Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b).
Thus, OBIM is constantly working through research and development efforts and standards development to improve biometric use, capture, and storage through investigation of the latest industry or academic advancements and how research findings can help improve performance of systems and policies that surround the use of the system. While continuing to improve its biometric services, OBIM has identified a need to understand the performance of new sensors and data emerging from these sensors. This understanding is crucial for advancing standards development and threshold guidance, as continuously evolving technologies impact the performance of the operational biometric matchers leveraged by the OBIM biometric repository. OBIM engages with performers, like John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST), and DHS Science And Technology (S&T) to collaborate and leverage the subject matter expertise available at each entity on biometric sensor evaluation to assess the performance of emerging biometric technologies.
OBIM seeks an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number to address the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for OBIM's studies of emerging biometric technology. These OBIM studies support relevant biometrics collection projects so that OBIM can collaborate with performers to take on various biometric collection projects that will help to understand biometric collection device performance in various operational settings. These performers include academic and other research centers to design and execute studies that involve collection of different biometrics depending on the need and/or research question. Since OBIM operates and maintains the DHS biometric repository responsible for storing, sharing, and matching of different types of biometrics modalities (
OBIM has tasked the performers to help in this effort based on their extensive experience with biometric image collection and analysis developed from previous studies. The performers anticipate conducting several small-scale human research studies to support OBIM program goals. OBIM is interested in gathering more information in the following biometric modalities: face, fingerprint, palm print, iris, and voice. The purpose of this analysis is (1) to evaluate the current state of the art in biometrics and biometric capture, and (2) to provide insights on likely future developments in biometrics and identity intelligence technologies for OBIM to continue advancing research and development efforts, interoperability standards, and threshold guidance. The goal is to aid in the elaboration of a multi-year strategy for both research and development for future technologies.
As OBIM is not an academic institution and does not engage in research studies; OBIM relies on academic and other research centers to design and execute studies that involve collection of different biometrics (depending on the need and/or research question). These performers develop research questions and protocols to solve questions and provide information and guidance for OBIM to better influence capture, share, match, and storage of biometrics.
OBIM aims to continue to improve biometric services within DHS and the necessary guidance associated with the implementation of these biometrics. The primary objective of the studies and use of information technology is to compare the performance of biometric sensors. Specifically, understanding the parameters that impact the quality of biometric image collection, which in turn, impacts the performance of downstream comparison algorithms.
OBIM will assess new sensors, as the technologies are continuously evolving, and the inherent impact on the performance with the operational biometric matchers leveraged by the OBIM biometric repository. To perform these assessments, biometric collections will occur using emerging commercial off the shelf sensors (
Advancing technology will look to reduce burden by:
• Contactless modes of collection, reducing hygienic burden to individuals as a result of the current practices of touching the same surface.
• Simultaneous collection of multiple biometrics, reducing the burden to the customer and agent by eliminating multiple devices and thus decreasing the time for each additional biometric to be collected.
• Mobile collection sensors, reducing time burden of customer by eliminating the need to travel from site of encounter to a collection site.
If any small businesses will be involved in the collections, study, or testing that are conducted surrounding biometric devices or matching performances, OBIM will work to ensure that guidance is streamlined and clear for all participants and all the time limits put forth for collection and testing are limited. No requests of performers, vendors, or participants will be made that will be prohibitive to the participation of small businesses.
OBIM provides accurate, timely, and high assurance biometric identity services. As technology continues to advance at a rapid speed, new biometric collection devices and techniques continue to emerge. Variations in the technology leveraged in these new devices/sensors may impact the interoperability with the existing operational biometric comparison algorithms leveraged by DHS OBIM. Assessments of these technologies do not account for the impact on the legacy biometric information within the OBIM biometric repository and provides skewed performance results on emerging technology. Less frequent collections will impact the ability to identify issues related to the performance of the operational comparison algorithms with emerging biometric collection technologies. This will hinder advancements of research and development, drafting updates to interoperability standards, and inform comparison algorithm threshold guidance to optimize biometric
There are no confidentiality assurances associated with this collection. However, coverage for the collection of this information is provided under DHS/ALL-041 External Biometric Records (EBR) System of Records, April 24, 2018, 83 FR 17829; DHS/NPPD/US-VISIT-0004—IDENT SORN, 72 FR 31080 (Jun. 5, 2007); DHS/ALL-043 Enterprise Biometric Administrative Records (EBAR) System of Records, March 16, 2020, 85 FR 14955.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to (1) not review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 44) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a motion filed by JBS Hair, Inc. (“JBS Hair”) to terminate the investigation as to the remaining active respondents based on withdrawal of the complaint, and (2) to request written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons, under the schedule set forth below, on remedy, the public interest, and bonding with respect to respondents previously found to be in default.
Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On September 9, 2024, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by JBS Hair of Atlanta, GA. 89 FR 73123-24 (Sept. 9, 2024). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain pre-stretched synthetic braiding hair and packaging therefor by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,786,026; 10,945,478; and 10,980,301. The Commission's notice of investigation (“NOI”) named the following respondents: Zugoo Import Inc. (“Zugoo”) of Norcross, GA; Crown Pacific Group Inc. (“Crown Pacific”) of Doraville, GA; Vivace, Inc. d/b/a Dae Do Inc. of Levittown, NY (“Dae Do”); A-Hair Import Inc. of Norcross, GA (“A-Hair”); Loc N Products, LLC of Atlanta, GA (“Loc N”); Sun Taiyang Co., Ltd. d/b/a Outre® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Elements Corporation d/b/a Bijouz® of Miami Gardens, FL; Hair Zone, Inc. d/b/a Sensationnel® of Moonachie, NJ; Beauty Essence, Inc. d/b/a Supreme
On December 2, 2024, the Commission granted JBS Hair's motion to amend the complaint and NOI to add JMS Trading Corp. (“JMS Trading”) of Buena Park, CA as a respondent to this investigation and to make several ministerial updates to the complaint.
The Commission previously terminated several respondents based on consent order stipulations and
The Commission has also found several respondents to be in default.
On April 1, 2025, JBS Hair filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to the remaining active respondents based on withdrawal of the Complaint.
On April 10, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 44) terminating the investigation pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a) (19 CFR 210.21(a)). ID at 3. The ID finds that “no extraordinary circumstances exist that would prevent the requested partial termination of this Investigation” and that JBS Hair “has complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a).”
On April 15, 2025, JBS Hair filed a document entitled “Written Submission on Remedy, Bonding and Public Interest with Respect to Defaulting Respondents” (“Remedy Submission”).
No party filed a petition for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The investigation is terminated with respect to the remaining active respondents. The Commission considers JBS Hair's Remedy Submission to be a declaration seeking relief against defaulting respondents pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(c)(1) (19 CFR 210.16(c)(1)).
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of,
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1415”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed with the Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two business days of any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
The Commission's vote for this determination took place on April 29, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Michael O'Lena, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, either by mail at 99 New York Ave. NE, Room 6.N.518, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Catherine Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Jason Gluck, FIPB, either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, 6N-509; Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 4, 2025.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Jeffrey Hosmer, Office of Strategic Management, by email at
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Catherine Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 4, 2025.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Vivian Chu, ORA, by email at
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 4, 2025.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Jodi Marsanopoli, ATF National Laboratory Center, by email at
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Catherine Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Total Burden Hours.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Nikki Wiltshire, Personnel Security Division, either by mail at U.S. Department of
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Michael O'Lena, EIPB either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE, Room 6.N.518, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Allison Spratlin, Program Manager, 145 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 532-5047;
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Shawn Stevens, either by mail at ATF-FELC, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until July 7, 2025.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, contact: Nikki Wiltshire, Personnel Security Division, either by mail at U.S. Department of Justice, PSD—Room (1E-300), 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 4, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The information collection requirements of the Standard are directed toward assuring the safety and health of divers exposed to hyperbaric conditions during and after undersea activities. Also, the required recordkeeping is intended to bring about a safe workplace and assure the safety of divers. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 4, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
Section 29 CFR 1926.50(f) requires employers to post emergency telephone numbers at the worksite if the 911 emergency telephone service is not available. Section 29 CFR 1926.250(a)(2) requires that employers post the maximum safe load limits of floors located in storage areas inside buildings or other structures unless the floors are on grade. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before June 4, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Coal mine operators are required to conduct inspections of slope and shaft areas of hazardous conditions, including tests for methane and oxygen deficiency, before and during each shift and before and after blasting. Records of the results of the inspections are required to be kept. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed new collection, “BLS Wage Records Data Application.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before July 7, 2025.
Send comments to Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to
Erin Good, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) Program produces a comprehensive tabulation of employment and wage information for workers covered by State unemployment insurance laws and is a virtual census of payroll employment. The BLS produces publicly available files from the QCEW data that include information on the number of establishments, monthly employment, and quarterly wages, by industry, at the 6-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) level, by county by ownership sector, for the entire United States. QCEW data have broad significance in evaluating labor trends and major industry developments. They are used in time series analyses, industry comparisons, and in special studies such as analyses of wages by size of establishment. The program also produces data necessary to both the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and various State employment security agencies in administering the employment security program.
The QCEW Program contains no individual wage records data; however, the BLS has started a program to exchange data about the employment and wages of individuals that was not previously provided from employers or State UI programs under the QCEW. The program promotes the interchange of information, from participating States who have entered into MOUs with the BLS. The additional wage records data will be compiled into a multi-state longitudinal database and the data will be used to improve existing BLS data products and to explore the creation of new ones. The longitudinal database will allow for research on outcomes of specified cohorts. This type of research answers questions of, for example outcomes for people who receive job training assistance. In addition, compiling a longitudinally linked multi-state database will also provide State partners with limited out-of-state wage records for the purpose of economic and statistical research and further State administration of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), 29 U.S.C. chapter 32, reporting requirements.
To provide wage records information to participating States, the BLS must collect certain information from the States. This information collection allows the BLS to obtain the details necessary for providing accurate data to participating States.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for a new collection that will allow States participating in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Unemployment Insurance (UI) Wage Records Data Sharing Program to request data from other participating States for statistical research.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Renewal of information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Comments are due by July 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
The NASA Ames Research Center, Human Systems Integration Division, manages voluntary safety reporting systems to collect and share safety information including, but not limited to, the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS). Both systems are voluntary reporting systems for the reporting of safety incidents, events, or situations. Respondents include, but are not limited to, any participant involved in safety-critical domains such as aviation or railway operations including commercial and general aviation pilots, drone operators, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, ground crews, maintenance technicians, dispatchers, train engineers, conductors, and other members of the public. The collected safety data are used by NASA, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal
NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the Space Act Section 203 (a)(3) to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof,” and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the nation's aeronautical and space program in accordance with the NASA Strategic Plan.
NASA collects this information electronically and that is the preferred manner, however information may also be collected via mail.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Renewal of information collection.
NASA, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Comments are due by July 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
The Virtual Guest Program exists to leverage the excitement around launches and milestones to widely disseminate information about Earth and space phenomena through the sharing of information about research on launches, mission objectives, public engagement activities (coloring pages, social media filters) and the like. The program provides registration opportunities for individuals and watch parties so that NASA may provide them specific information they are interested in receiving and to share a detailed slice of the NASA efforts in carrying out the other portions of the Space Act of 1958. By learning through information submitted of the plans of Watch Party organizers, NASA can best provide appropriate resources and share information about its activities and results.
NASA is committed to effectively performing the Agency's communication function in accordance with the Space Act section 203(a)(3) to “provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof,” and to enhance public understanding of, and participation in, the nation's aeronautical and space program in accordance with the NASA Strategic Plan.
Electronic/Online Web Form.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
Weeks May 5, 12, 19, 26, and June 2, 9, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 5, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 19, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 26, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 9, 2025.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Chris Markley at 301-415-6293 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption from certain emergency core cooling system requirements to support the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The exemption was issued on April 24, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0068 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:
•
•
•
Blake A. Purnell, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1380; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) and Constellation Energy Generation, LLC are the holders of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The Salem facilities consist of two pressurized-water reactors located in Salem County, New Jersey. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
By letter dated July 24, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML24206A100), PSEG requested an exemption from certain emergency core cooling system (ECCS) requirements in title 10 of the
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46, “Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,” require, in part, that each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical Zircaloy or ZIRLO® cladding must be provided with an ECCS that must be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCAs) conforms to the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.46(b). In addition, paragraph I.A.5, “Metal—Water Reaction Rate,” of 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, requires the Baker-Just equation be used to calculate the rate of energy release, hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction in the core. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and the Baker-Just equation in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, part I, presume the use of either Zircaloy or ZIRLO® fuel rod cladding.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” PSEG requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, paragraph I.A.5, to support the use of Optimized ZIRLO
PSEG's July 24, 2024, letter also included a license amendment request to permit the use of Optimized ZIRLO
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 provided that: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present. The requested exemption to support the use of fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO
The requested exemption would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance for reactors during a LOCA that provide for the adequate protection of public health and safety. The regulations in 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, part I, specify the required and acceptable features of ECCS evaluation models that may be used to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and the Baker-Just equation in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, part I, presume the use of either Zircaloy or ZIRLO® fuel rod cladding.
The technical basis for Optimized ZIRLO
The Westinghouse addendum 1-A demonstrated that the effectiveness of the ECCS will not be affected by using fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO
The PSEG request for an exemption is limited to the cladding material such that all other requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, will remain applicable to Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The requested exemption is solely to allow the use of criteria and methods set forth in these regulations for fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO
The requested exemption would allow PSEG to use fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to provide requirements capable of ensuring adequate core cooling during and after the most limiting postulated LOCA. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, part I, is to specify the required and acceptable features of ECCS evaluation models that may be used to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46.
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and the Baker-Just equation in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, part I, presume the use of either Zircaloy or ZIRLO® fuel rod cladding. The PSEG request for an exemption is limited to the cladding material such that all other requirements in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, will remain applicable to Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The requested exemption is solely to allow the use of criteria and methods set forth in these regulations for fuel rods with Optimized ZIRLO
The exemption changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. With respect to its impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined, as described below, that the issuance of the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). The regulation in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) states:
Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter that changes a requirement or issuance of an exemption from a requirement, with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in part 20 of this chapter; or the issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter that changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement; provided that: (i) The amendment or exemption involves no significant hazards consideration; (ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; and (iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The criteria for determining whether an action involves a significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92, “Issuance of amendment.” The proposed action is to permit the use of Optimized ZIRLO
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants PSEG an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, paragraph I.A.5, to support the use of Optimized ZIRLO
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of docketing.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and docketed a license amendment application from the Department of Energy (DOE or the licensee) for amendment of Materials License No. SNM-2504, for the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located in Platteville, Colorado. The requested amendment would revise certain license conditions and technical specifications (TS) by adjusting references to relevant organizational components of DOE, correcting prior clerical drafting errors, and changing the description of a DOE official who is responsible for the operation and nuclear safety of the FSV ISFSI and for ensuring its compliance with certain conditions and requirements of the license and applicable regulations. The NRC will process the application in accordance with NRC regulations, as further explained in the
May 5, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0075 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:
•
•
•
Daneira Meléndez-Colón, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7295; email:
By letter dated November 14, 2024, DOE submitted to the NRC an application to amend the license conditions and TS for the Fort St. Vrain ISFSI, located in Platteville, Colorado. Materials License No. SNM-2504 authorizes the licensee to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel from the decommissioned FSV Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed amendment would revise TS 5.1.1 and 5.2.1.1 so that they explicitly designate the Manager for the Idaho
In a letter to DOE dated March 21, 2025, the NRC notified DOE that the application was acceptable to begin a technical review. The NRC's Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has docketed this application under Docket No. 72-09, and the NRC is issuing this notice of docketing as authorized and required by 10 CFR 72.16(e). The NRC will approve the license amendment if it finds that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the NRC's regulations, and the NRC will make findings consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and part 51 of title 10 of the
The documents identified in this notice are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On March 11, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 10, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 13, 2025, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users can connect, related fees and a reference to who can charge redistribution fees. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users
Currently, Users are offered connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (“Third Party Systems”) and connectivity to data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”) at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center (“MDC”).
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Systems:
• Add Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Long Term Stock Exchange,
• To reflect Cboe Canada`s integration,
To make these changes, the list of available Third Party Systems would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions italicized):
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combination. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange expects that the connectivity partner of BOATS will charge a redistribution fee, which will be passed through to the User. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “and their partners” to the first sentence of the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds,” which describes who can charge redistribution fees, so that it includes connectivity partners.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Data Feeds (together, the “Proposed Third Party Data Feeds”):
• Add the following Third Party Data Feeds with the following fees for monthly recurring connectivity:
○ Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), for $750 a month;
○ Cboe CFE Futures, for $1,500 per month;
○ Long Term Stock Exchange, for $2,600 per month;
○ MEMX Equities, for $2,000 per month;
○ MEMX Options, for $2,000 per month;
○ Small Exchange, for $1,000 per month.
• Reflecting Cboe Canada's integration,
• Replace Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX Pearl with the following five feeds:
○ MIAX Emerald, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Equities, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee; and
○ MIAX Sapphire, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee.
• Combine Nasdaq Stock Market with Nasdaq ISE under the name “Nasdaq Stock Market” and change the combined monthly recurring connectivity fee to $3,000 per month.
• Combine TMX Group and Montreal Exchange
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change the monthly recurring connectivity fee per Third Party Data Feed for 18 feeds.
To make these changes, the text under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” and list of available Third Party Data Feeds would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions
Third Party Data Feed providers
The Exchange would provide access to the Proposed Third Party Systems as conveniences to Users.
As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the MDC.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to a Proposed Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant proposed third party, pursuant to which it would charge the User for access to the Proposed Third Party System. The Exchange would then enable unicast connectivity between the User and the Proposed Third Party System over the IP network.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the providers of any of the Proposed Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Proposed Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Proposed Third Party System. Connectivity to a Proposed Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Proposed Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to charge the same monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems that it does for the current Third Party Systems. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Proposed Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party and what bandwidth connection would be required. The fees for such bandwidth connection would vary based on the size of the connection, not on the particular Third Party System the User chooses. The Exchange is not proposing to change the pricing of any of these bandwidth connections; the Exchange is simply expanding the list of Third Party Systems that Users may access via these bandwidth connections.
The Exchange would provide connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds as a convenience to Users.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange would receive a Proposed Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider at the relevant source. The Exchange would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds over the IP network. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would include trading and other information concerning the securities that are traded on the relevant third party systems.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, in order to connect to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the third party content service provider, pursuant to which it may charge the User for the data feed. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feed in remote locations and transport it over its fiber optic network to the MDC. After the content service provider and User entered into an agreement and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would retransmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged the fee for, connectivity to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into a contract.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the sellers of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds and would have no right to use those feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. None of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry service to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feeds. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
Access to most of the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to most of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds were requested by Users, but the Exchange believes that it would gain at most a handful of new customers due to the proposed change. The Exchange does not expect that the remainder of the proposed rule change will result in new customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which other vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As explained below, the Exchange's provision of access to the Proposed Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds (“Connectivity”) may compete with access and connectivity provided by other third parties. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees, the Commission's market-based test considers “whether the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal . . ., including the level of any fees.”
The Exchange's proposed Access and Connectivity would compete with other methods by which both the Exchange and various third parties already provide, or could provide, Users with access to Third Party Systems and connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that access to at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are available to Users from one or more third parties in the MDC. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether additional third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, the market for access to the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is competitive, and there is no reason to believe that other third party providers of access and connectivity would not provide it to Users if they considered it to be in their commercial interest. FIDS competes with other providers that offer such access and connectivity.
Such third parties compete, or, if additional third parties wish to offer access or connectivity, would compete, with the Exchange's Access and Connectivity and exert, or would exert, significant competitive forces on the Exchange in setting the terms of its proposal, including the level of the Exchange's proposed fees.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar substitute for at least two of the Proposed Third Party Systems and at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is available, and the Exchange has not placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange, the proposed fees for the Exchange's connectivity to Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add “and their partners” to the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” (“Proposed Pass-Through Edit”) as that would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed changes, as connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and access to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds was generally requested by Users.
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combinations. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange believes that the fees for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
• The combination of Cboe MATCHNow into Cboe Canada reflects the integration of Cboe Canada.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq ISE is equal to the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the TMX Group and Montreal Exchange is less than the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• By breaking out the MIAX options into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, Users may connect to only the market or markets that they wish. Unlike other Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, MIAX requires dedicated connectivity by individual data feed, and so separating them into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds follows MIAX's own connectivity model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is equitable as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule. Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. By offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange gives each User additional options for addressing its needs, responding to User demand for options. Providing additional services helps each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of connectivity that best suits its needs. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's Access or Connectivity should still be able to access Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party connections.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is not unfairly discriminatory as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule to all market participants.
Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. The proposed change would provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal latency of the access they use to connect to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed Access or Connectivity would still be able to access the Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party systems.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to
For all these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC. The Exchange's proposed service for Access and Connectivity does not have any special access to or advantage within the MDC. All distances in the MDC are normalized.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party Telecoms. Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
The Proposed Pass-Through Edit would not impose any burden on competition. It is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with adding clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees.
The changes would not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its CDS Clearing Rule Book (“Rule Book”) and FCM/BD CDS Clearing Regulations (“FCM/BD Regulations”) to: (i) provide that each Clearing Member must participate in the testing of LCH SA's business continuity and disaster recovery (“BCDR”) plans and LCH SA's recovery and orderly wind-down (“RWD”) plans pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 1004 (“Reg SCI”)
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
LCH SA is proposing to amend the Rule Book
LCH SA currently engages select participants to assist with functional and performance testing of its SCI systems as part of its overall BCDR program. To ensure it has the authority to designate select participants to engage in BCDR testing, LCH SA is proposing to specify in its Rule Book the authority to designate participants to assist with BCDR testing in accordance with its regulatory obligations under Reg SCI
LCH SA proposes to amend Article 2.2.8.1 of the Rule Book to provide that each Clearing Member must participate in functional and performance testing of the operation of LCH SA's BCDR plans and LCH SA's RWD plans, in the manner and frequency specified by LCH SA, as LCH SA may reasonably require to comply with its applicable regulatory obligations, on one month's notice via member notification sent by email. This proposed new requirement would be in addition to existing Clearing Member participation requirements in any other technical and operational tests, reasonably organized at the discretion of LCH SA, in order to ensure the continuity and orderly functioning of LCH SA's CDS Clearing Service. Specifically, LCH SA may already designate Clearing Members to participate in default management testing as a condition of membership pursuant to its Rule Book and now proposes to separately clarify that pursuant to revised Article 2.2.8.1 of the Rule Book, Clearing Members must also participate in BCDR testing and its RWD plans.
LCH SA proposes to amend Regulation 6 of the FCM/BD Regulations for the purposes of taking into account the recent adoption of CEA Rule 1.44
LCH SA is proposing this amendment following the CFTC's adoption of new Rule 1.44,
LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Exchange Act Rule 17Ad-22 provides that a clearing agency must establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, manage the covered clearing agency's operational risks by establishing and maintaining a business continuity plan that addresses events posing a significant risk of disrupting operations.
Finally, Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22 requires LCH SA to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by LCH SA, which must include plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of LCH SA necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.
LCH SA believes the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the provisions of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
Specifically, LCH SA is proposing to clarify to participants and other stakeholders that, as a requirement to membership and to ensure LCH SA can successfully execute its BCDR plans and RWD plans in the event such plans are activated, LCH SA shall designate such participants and other stakeholders to assist in testing of such plans as required by its regulatory obligations. This change would complement LCH SA's ability to manage its operational risk, as the BCDR testing requirement would provide LCH SA with valuable information to inform and enhance its BCDR program.
Likewise, this change would complement LCH SA's risk management framework, as RWD plan testing would be in addition to default management testing and would include additional informative scenarios that would trigger the execution of LCH SA's recovery tools or if such tools are exhausted, the initiation of an orderly wind-down. The results of RWD plan testing would complement lessons learned from default management testing and would ensure LCH SA is prepared to manage a recovery and/or wind-down of its core services.
Taken together, LCH SA believes that clarifying its requirements for participant and other stakeholder testing of its BCDR plans and RWD plans is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act, Rules 17ad-22
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing
Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users can connect, related fees and a reference to who can charge redistribution fees. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users
Currently, Users are offered connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (“Third Party Systems”) and connectivity to data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”) at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center (“MDC”).
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Systems:
• Add Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Long Term Stock Exchange,
• To reflect Cboe Canada`s integration,
To make these changes, the list of available Third Party Systems would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions italicized):
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combination. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange expects that the connectivity partner of BOATS will charge a redistribution fee, which will be passed through to the User. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “and their partners” to the first sentence of the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds,” which describes who can charge redistribution fees, so that it includes connectivity partners.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Data Feeds (together, the “Proposed Third Party Data Feeds”):
• Add the following Third Party Data Feeds with the following fees for monthly recurring connectivity:
○ Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), for $750 a month;
○ Cboe CFE Futures, for $1,500 per month;
○ Long Term Stock Exchange, for $2,600 per month;
○ MEMX Equities, for $2,000 per month;
○ MEMX Options, for $2,000 per month;
○ Small Exchange, for $1,000 per month.
• Reflecting Cboe Canada's integration,
• Replace Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX Pearl with the following five feeds:
○ MIAX Emerald, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Equities, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee; and
○ MIAX Sapphire, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee.
• Combine Nasdaq Stock Market with Nasdaq ISE under the name “Nasdaq Stock Market” and change the combined monthly recurring connectivity fee to $3,000 per month.
• Combine TMX Group and Montreal Exchange
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change the monthly recurring connectivity fee per Third Party Data Feed for 18 feeds.
To make these changes, the text under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” and list of available Third Party Data Feeds would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions
Third Party Data Feed providers
The Exchange would provide access to the Proposed Third Party Systems as conveniences to Users.
As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the MDC.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to a Proposed Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant proposed third party, pursuant to which it would charge the User for access to the Proposed Third Party System. The Exchange would then enable unicast connectivity between the User and the Proposed Third Party System over the IP network.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the providers of any of the Proposed Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Proposed Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Proposed Third Party System. Connectivity to a Proposed Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Proposed Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to charge the same monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems that it does for the current Third Party Systems. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Proposed Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party and what bandwidth connection would be required. The fees for such bandwidth connection would vary based on the size of the connection, not on the particular Third Party System the User chooses. The Exchange is not proposing to change the pricing of any of these bandwidth connections; the
The Exchange would provide connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds as a convenience to Users.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange would receive a Proposed Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider at the relevant source. The Exchange would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds over the IP network. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would include trading and other information concerning the securities that are traded on the relevant third party systems.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, in order to connect to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the third party content service provider, pursuant to which it may charge the User for the data feed. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feed in remote locations and transport it over its fiber optic network to the MDC. After the content service provider and User entered into an agreement and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would retransmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged the fee for, connectivity to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into a contract.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the sellers of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds and would have no right to use those feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. None of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry service to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feeds. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
Access to most of the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to most of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds were requested by Users, but the Exchange believes that it would gain at most a handful of new customers due to the proposed change. The Exchange does not expect that the remainder of the proposed rule change will result in new customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which other vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As explained below, the Exchange's provision of access to the Proposed Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds (“Connectivity”) may compete with access and connectivity provided by other third parties. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees, the Commission's market-based test considers “whether the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal . . ., including the level of any fees.”
The Exchange's proposed Access and Connectivity would compete with other methods by which both the Exchange and various third parties already provide, or could provide, Users with access to Third Party Systems and connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that access to at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are available to Users from one or more third parties in the MDC. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether additional third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, the market for access to the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is competitive, and there is no reason to believe that other third party providers of access and connectivity would not provide it to Users if they considered it to be in their commercial interest. FIDS competes with other providers that offer such access and connectivity.
Such third parties compete, or, if additional third parties wish to offer access or connectivity, would compete, with the Exchange's Access and Connectivity and exert, or would exert, significant competitive forces on the Exchange in setting the terms of its proposal, including the level of the Exchange's proposed fees.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar substitute for at least two of the Proposed Third Party Systems and at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is available, and the Exchange has not placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange, the proposed fees for the Exchange's connectivity to Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add “and their partners” to the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” (“Proposed Pass-Through Edit”) as that would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed changes, as connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and access to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds was generally requested by Users.
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combinations. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange believes that the fees for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
• The combination of Cboe MATCHNow into Cboe Canada reflects the integration of Cboe Canada.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq ISE is equal to the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the TMX Group and Montreal Exchange is less than the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• By breaking out the MIAX options into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, Users may connect to only the market or markets that they wish. Unlike other Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, MIAX requires dedicated connectivity by individual data feed, and so separating them into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds follows MIAX's own connectivity model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is equitable as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule. Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. By offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange gives each User additional options for addressing its needs, responding to User demand for options. Providing additional services helps each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of connectivity that best suits its needs. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's Access or Connectivity should still be able to access Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party connections.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is not unfairly discriminatory as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule to all market participants.
Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. The proposed change would provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal latency of the access they use to connect to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed Access or Connectivity would still be able to access the Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party systems.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
For all these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC. The Exchange's proposed service for Access and Connectivity does not have any special access to or advantage within the MDC. All distances in the MDC are normalized.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity-like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party Telecoms. Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
The Proposed Pass-Through Edit would not impose any burden on competition. It is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with adding clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees.
The changes would not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users can connect, related fees and a reference to who can charge redistribution fees. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users
Currently, Users are offered connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (“Third Party Systems”) and connectivity to data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”) at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center (“MDC”).
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Systems:
• Add Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Long Term Stock Exchange,
• To reflect Cboe Canada`s integration,
To make these changes, the list of available Third Party Systems would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combination. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange expects that the connectivity partner of BOATS will charge a redistribution fee, which will be passed through to the User. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “and their partners” to the first sentence of the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds,” which describes who can charge redistribution fees, so that it includes connectivity partners.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Data Feeds (together, the “Proposed Third Party Data Feeds”):
• Add the following Third Party Data Feeds with the following fees for monthly recurring connectivity:
○ Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), for $750 a month;
○ Cboe CFE Futures, for $1,500 per month;
○ Long Term Stock Exchange, for $2,600 per month;
○ MEMX Equities, for $2,000 per month;
○ MEMX Options, for $2,000 per month;
○ Small Exchange, for $1,000 per month.
• Reflecting Cboe Canada's integration,
• Replace Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX Pearl with the following five feeds:
○ MIAX Emerald, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Equities, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee; and
○ MIAX Sapphire, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee.
• Combine Nasdaq Stock Market with Nasdaq ISE under the name “Nasdaq Stock Market” and change the combined monthly recurring connectivity fee to $3,000 per month.
• Combine TMX Group and Montreal Exchange
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change the monthly recurring connectivity fee per Third Party Data Feed for 18 feeds.
To make these changes, the text under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” and list of available Third Party Data Feeds would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions
Third Party Data Feed providers
The Exchange would provide access to the Proposed Third Party Systems as conveniences to Users.
As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the MDC.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to a Proposed Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant proposed third party, pursuant to which it would charge the User for access to the Proposed Third Party System. The Exchange would then enable unicast connectivity between the User and the Proposed Third Party System over the IP network.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the providers of any of the Proposed Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Proposed Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Proposed Third Party System. Connectivity to a Proposed Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Proposed Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to charge the same monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems that it does for the current Third Party Systems. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Proposed Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party and what bandwidth connection would be required. The fees for such bandwidth connection would vary based on the size of the connection, not on the particular Third Party System the User chooses. The Exchange is not proposing to change the pricing of any of these bandwidth connections; the Exchange is simply expanding the list of Third Party Systems that Users may access via these bandwidth connections.
The Exchange would provide connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds as a convenience to Users.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange would receive a Proposed Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider at the relevant source. The Exchange would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds over the IP network. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would include trading and other information concerning the securities that are traded on the relevant third party systems.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, in order to connect to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the third party content service provider, pursuant to which it may charge the User for the data feed. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feed in remote locations and transport it over its fiber
The Exchange has no affiliation with the sellers of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds and would have no right to use those feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. None of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry service to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feeds. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
Access to most of the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to most of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds were requested by Users, but the Exchange believes that it would gain at most a handful of new customers due to the proposed change. The Exchange does not expect that the remainder of the proposed rule change will result in new customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which other vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As explained below, the Exchange's provision of access to the Proposed Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds (“Connectivity”) may compete with access and connectivity provided by other third parties. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees, the Commission's market-based test considers “whether the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal . . ., including the level of any fees.”
The Exchange's proposed Access and Connectivity would compete with other methods by which both the Exchange and various third parties already provide, or could provide, Users with access to Third Party Systems and connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that access to at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are available to Users from one or more third parties in the MDC. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether additional third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, the market for access to the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is competitive, and there is no reason to believe that other third party providers of access and connectivity would not provide it to Users if they considered it to be in their commercial interest. FIDS competes with other providers that offer such access and connectivity.
Such third parties compete, or, if additional third parties wish to offer access or connectivity, would compete, with the Exchange's Access and Connectivity and exert, or would exert, significant competitive forces on the Exchange in setting the terms of its proposal, including the level of the Exchange's proposed fees.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar substitute for at least two of the Proposed Third Party Systems and at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is available, and the Exchange has not placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange, the proposed fees for the Exchange's connectivity to Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add “and their partners” to the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” (“Proposed Pass-Through Edit”) as that would add clarity as to who may
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed changes, as connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and access to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds was generally requested by Users.
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combinations. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange believes that the fees for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
• The combination of Cboe MATCHNow into Cboe Canada reflects the integration of Cboe Canada.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq ISE is equal to the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the TMX Group and Montreal Exchange is less than the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• By breaking out the MIAX options into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, Users may connect to only the market or markets that they wish. Unlike other Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, MIAX requires dedicated connectivity by individual data feed, and so separating them into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds follows MIAX's own connectivity model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is equitable as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule. Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. By offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange gives each User additional options for addressing its needs, responding to User demand for options. Providing additional services helps each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of connectivity that best suits its needs. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's Access or Connectivity should still be able to access Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party connections.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is not unfairly discriminatory as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule to all market participants.
Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. The proposed change would provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal latency of the access they use to connect to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed Access or Connectivity would still be able to access the Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party systems.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
For all these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party Telecoms. Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
The Proposed Pass-Through Edit would not impose any burden on competition. It is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with adding clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees.
The changes would not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On February 28, 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 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.
On October 15, 2024, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 17, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares of beneficial interest with varying sales loads and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Align Alternative Access Fund and Sovereign Financial Group, Inc.
The application was filed on February 26, 2025, and an amendment on March 21, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated March 21, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On March 12, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 10, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 3, 2025, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 13, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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.
On March 10, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users can connect, related fees and a reference to who can charge redistribution fees. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users
Currently, Users are offered connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (“Third Party Systems”) and connectivity to data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”) at the Mahwah, New Jersey data center (“MDC”).
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Systems:
• Add Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Long Term Stock Exchange,
• To reflect Cboe Canada`s integration,
To make these changes, the list of available Third Party Systems would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions italicized):
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combination. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange expects that the connectivity partner of BOATS will charge a redistribution fee, which will be passed through to the User. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “and their partners” to the first sentence of the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds,” which describes who can charge redistribution fees, so that it includes connectivity partners.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Data Feeds (together, the “Proposed Third Party Data Feeds”):
• Add the following Third Party Data Feeds with the following fees for monthly recurring connectivity:
○ Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), for $750 a month;
○ Cboe CFE Futures, for $1,500 per month;
○ Long Term Stock Exchange, for $2,600 per month;
○ MEMX Equities, for $2,000 per month;
○ MEMX Options, for $2,000 per month;
○ Small Exchange, for $1,000 per month.
• Reflecting Cboe Canada's integration,
• Replace Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX Pearl with the following five feeds:
○ MIAX Emerald, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Equities, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee; and
○ MIAX Sapphire, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee.
• Combine Nasdaq Stock Market with Nasdaq ISE under the name “Nasdaq Stock Market” and change the combined monthly recurring connectivity fee to $3,000 per month.
• Combine TMX Group and Montreal Exchange
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change the monthly recurring connectivity fee per Third Party Data Feed for 18 feeds.
To make these changes, the text under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” and list of available Third Party Data Feeds would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions italicized):
Third Party Data Feed providers
The Exchange would provide access to the Proposed Third Party Systems as conveniences to Users.
As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the MDC.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to a Proposed Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant proposed third party, pursuant to which it would charge the User for access to the Proposed Third Party System. The Exchange would then enable unicast connectivity between the User and the Proposed Third Party System over the IP network.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the providers of any of the Proposed Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Proposed Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Proposed Third Party System. Connectivity to a Proposed Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Proposed Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to charge the same monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems that it does for the current Third Party Systems. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Proposed Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party and what bandwidth connection would be required. The fees for such bandwidth connection would vary based on the size of the connection, not on the particular Third Party System the User chooses. The Exchange is not proposing to change the pricing of any of these bandwidth connections; the Exchange is simply expanding the list of Third Party Systems that Users may access via these bandwidth connections.
The Exchange would provide connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds as a convenience to Users.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange would receive a Proposed Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider at the relevant source. The Exchange would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds over the IP network. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would include trading and other information concerning the securities that are traded on the relevant third party systems.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, in order to connect to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the third party content service provider, pursuant to which it may charge the User for the data feed. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feed in remote locations and transport it over its fiber optic network to the MDC. After the content service provider and User entered into an agreement and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would retransmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged the fee for, connectivity to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into a contract.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the sellers of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds and would have no right to use those feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. None of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry service to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feeds. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
Access to most of the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to most of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds were requested by Users, but the Exchange believes that it would gain at most a handful of new customers due to the proposed change. The Exchange does not expect that the remainder of the proposed rule change will result in new customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which other vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As explained below, the Exchange's provision of access to the Proposed Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds (“Connectivity”) may compete with access and connectivity provided by other third parties. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees, the Commission's market-based test considers “whether the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal . . ., including the level of any fees.”
The Exchange's proposed Access and Connectivity would compete with other methods by which both the Exchange and various third parties already provide, or could provide, Users with access to Third Party Systems and connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that access to at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are available to Users from one or more third parties in the MDC. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether additional third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, as such third parties are not required to make that information public. However, the market for access to the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is competitive, and there is no reason to believe that other third party providers of access and connectivity would not provide it to Users if they considered it to be in their commercial interest. FIDS competes with other providers that offer such access and connectivity.
Such third parties compete, or, if additional third parties wish to offer access or connectivity, would compete, with the Exchange's Access and Connectivity and exert, or would exert, significant competitive forces on the Exchange in setting the terms of its proposal, including the level of the Exchange's proposed fees.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar substitute for at least two of the Proposed Third Party Systems and at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is available, and the Exchange has not placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange, the proposed fees for the Exchange's connectivity to Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add “and their partners” to the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” (“Proposed Pass-Through Edit”) as that would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed changes, as connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and access to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds was generally requested by Users.
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combinations. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange believes that the fees for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
• The combination of Cboe MATCHNow into Cboe Canada reflects the integration of Cboe Canada.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq ISE is equal to the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the TMX Group and Montreal Exchange is less than the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• By breaking out the MIAX options into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, Users may connect to only the market or markets that they wish. Unlike other Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, MIAX requires dedicated connectivity by individual data feed, and so separating them into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds follows MIAX's own connectivity model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is equitable as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule. Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. By offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange gives each User additional options for addressing its needs, responding to User demand for options. Providing additional services helps each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of connectivity that best suits its needs. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's Access or Connectivity should still be able to access Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party connections.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is not unfairly discriminatory as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule to all market participants.
Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. The proposed change would provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal latency of the access they use to connect to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed Access or Connectivity would still be able to access the Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party systems.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to
For all these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC. The Exchange's proposed service for Access and Connectivity does not have any special access to or advantage within the MDC. All distances in the MDC are normalized.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party Telecoms. Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
The Proposed Pass-Through Edit would not impose any burden on competition. It is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with adding clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees.
The changes would not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users can connect, related fees and a reference to who can charge redistribution fees. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Connectivity Fee Schedule to amend the list of third party systems and third party data feeds to which Users
Currently, Users are offered connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (“Third Party Systems”) and connectivity to data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (“Third Party Data Feeds”) at
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Systems:
• Add Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Long Term Stock Exchange,
• To reflect Cboe Canada`s integration,
To make these changes, the list of available Third Party Systems would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combination. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange expects that the connectivity partner of BOATS will charge a redistribution fee, which will be passed through to the User. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add “and their partners” to the first sentence of the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds,” which describes who can charge redistribution fees, so that it includes connectivity partners.
The Exchange proposes to make the following changes to the list of Third Party Data Feeds (together, the “Proposed Third Party Data Feeds”):
• Add the following Third Party Data Feeds with the following fees for monthly recurring connectivity:
○ Blue Ocean ATS (BOATS), for $750 a month;
○ Cboe CFE Futures, for $1,500 per month;
○ Long Term Stock Exchange, for $2,600 per month;
○ MEMX Equities, for $2,000 per month;
○ MEMX Options, for $2,000 per month;
○ Small Exchange, for $1,000 per month.
• Reflecting Cboe Canada's integration,
• Replace Miami International Securities Exchange/MIAX Pearl with the following five feeds:
○ MIAX Emerald, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Equities, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee;
○ MIAX Pearl Options, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee; and
○ MIAX Sapphire, at a $2,600 monthly recurring connectivity fee.
• Combine Nasdaq Stock Market with Nasdaq ISE under the name “Nasdaq Stock Market” and change the combined monthly recurring connectivity fee to $3,000 per month.
• Combine TMX Group and Montreal Exchange
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change the monthly recurring connectivity fee per Third Party Data Feed for 18 feeds.
To make these changes, the text under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” and list of available Third Party Data Feeds would be amended as follows (proposed deletions bracketed, proposed additions italicized):
Third Party Data Feed providers
The Exchange would provide access to the Proposed Third Party Systems as conveniences to Users.
As with the current Third Party Systems, Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Systems over the internet protocol (“IP”) network, a local area network available in the MDC.
As with the current Third Party Systems, in order to obtain access to a Proposed Third Party System, the User would enter into an agreement with the relevant proposed third party, pursuant to which it would charge the User for access to the Proposed Third Party System. The Exchange would then enable unicast connectivity between the User and the Proposed Third Party System over the IP network.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the providers of any of the Proposed Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Proposed Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Proposed Third Party System. Connectivity to a Proposed Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Proposed Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to charge the same monthly recurring fee for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems that it does for the current Third Party Systems. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Proposed Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party and what bandwidth connection would be required. The fees for such bandwidth connection would vary based on the size of the connection, not on the particular Third Party System the User chooses. The Exchange is not proposing to change the pricing of any of these bandwidth connections; the Exchange is simply expanding the list of Third Party Systems that Users may access via these bandwidth connections.
The Exchange would provide connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds as a convenience to Users.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchange would receive a Proposed Third Party Data Feed from the content service provider at the relevant source. The Exchange would then provide connectivity to that data to Users for a fee. Users would connect to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds over the IP network. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would include trading and other information concerning the securities that are traded on the relevant third party systems.
As with the existing connections to Third Party Data Feeds, in order to connect to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the third party content service provider, pursuant to which it may charge the User for the data feed. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feed in remote locations and transport it over its fiber optic network to the MDC. After the content service provider and User entered into an agreement and the Exchange received authorization from the content service provider, the Exchange would retransmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged the fee for, connectivity to a Proposed Third Party Data Feed for which it entered into a contract.
The Exchange has no affiliation with the sellers of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds and would have no right to use those feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. None of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. The Proposed Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry service to the execution systems of the third parties generating the feeds. The Exchange would receive the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The proposed rule change would not apply differently to distinct types or sizes of market participants. Rather, it would apply to all Users equally. As is currently the case, the purchase of any colocation service is completely voluntary and the Connectivity Fee Schedule is applied uniformly to all Users.
Access to most of the Proposed Third Party Systems and connectivity to most of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds were requested by Users, but the Exchange believes that it would gain at most a handful of new customers due to the proposed change. The Exchange does not expect that the remainder of the proposed rule change will result in new customers.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which other vendors offer colocation services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that colocation enhances the efficiency of their operations. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
As explained below, the Exchange's provision of access to the Proposed Third Party Systems (“Access”) and connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds (“Connectivity”) may compete with access and connectivity provided by other third parties. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues relating to colocation services or related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable.
In considering the reasonableness of proposed services and fees, the Commission's market-based test considers “whether the exchange was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal . . ., including the level of any fees.”
The Exchange's proposed Access and Connectivity would compete with other methods by which both the Exchange and various third parties already provide, or could provide, Users with access to Third Party Systems and connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party vendors are not at any competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that access to at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are available to Users from one or more third parties in the MDC. The Exchange does not have visibility into whether additional third parties currently offer, or intend to offer, Users access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, as such third
Such third parties compete, or, if additional third parties wish to offer access or connectivity, would compete, with the Exchange's Access and Connectivity and exert, or would exert, significant competitive forces on the Exchange in setting the terms of its proposal, including the level of the Exchange's proposed fees.
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party telecommunications service providers that have installed their equipment in the MDC's two meet-me-rooms (“Telecoms”).
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
In sum, because the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms on which it offers its proposal, in particular because the Exchange believes that a substantially similar substitute for at least two of the Proposed Third Party Systems and at least two of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds is available, and the Exchange has not placed third-party vendors at a competitive disadvantage created by the Exchange, the proposed fees for the Exchange's connectivity to Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add “and their partners” to the second paragraph under “Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds” (“Proposed Pass-Through Edit”) as that would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to make the proposed changes, as connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and access to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds was generally requested by Users.
The Exchange does not propose to change the monthly recurring fee Users pay for access to each Third Party System. Although the proposed changes to the list of Third Party Systems would combine the names of several current Third Party Systems, no User would be charged more as a consequence of the combinations. A User would continue to be able to choose which systems it wants from any Third Party System. It would not have to receive any systems, or pay for any bandwidth, that it did not choose.
The Exchange believes that the fees for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are reasonable.
• The combination of Cboe MATCHNow into Cboe Canada reflects the integration of Cboe Canada.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the Nasdaq Stock Market and Nasdaq ISE is equal to the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• The proposed fee for the combination of the TMX Group and Montreal Exchange is less than the sum of the current fees for those feeds.
• By breaking out the MIAX options into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, Users may connect to only the market or markets that they wish. Unlike other Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, MIAX requires dedicated connectivity by individual data feed, and so separating them into five Proposed Third Party Data Feeds follows MIAX's own connectivity model.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is equitable as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule. Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. By offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange gives each User additional options for addressing its needs, responding to User demand for options. Providing additional services helps each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of connectivity that best suits its needs. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's Access or Connectivity should still be able to access Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party connections.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory, for the following reasons.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Pass-Through Edit is not unfairly discriminatory as it would add clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees, making the paragraph more precise and thereby ensuring the accuracy of, and adding clarity and transparency to, the Connectivity Fee Schedule to all market participants.
Without this proposed rule change, Users would have fewer options for access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. The proposed change would provide Users with an additional choice with respect to the form and optimal latency of the access they use to connect to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds, allowing a User to select the connectivity that better suits its needs, helping it tailor its colocation operations to the requirements of its business operations. Users that do not opt to utilize the Exchange's proposed Access or Connectivity would still be able to access the Proposed Third Party Systems or connect to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds using third party systems.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will result in fees being charged only to Users that voluntarily select to receive the corresponding services and because those services will be available to all Users. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis (
For all these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage over either existing third-party providers or any future providers of access to Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. If a third party offers such access or connectivity to Users, a User may utilize a cross connect, a third party telecommunication network, the MDC network, or a combination thereof to access such access or connectivity through a connection to another User inside the MDC or a third party vendor outside the MDC. The Exchange's proposed service for Access and Connectivity does not have any special access to or advantage within the MDC. All distances in the MDC are normalized.
Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that FIDS would have any competitive advantage because it would charge for connectivity only, not the Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed itself. All Users that connect to a Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed, whether they elect to connect using the Exchange's proposed service or that of the Exchange's competitors, would have to pay a third party for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed.
To be clear, third party competitors would not be required to obtain the Proposed Third Party Systems or Proposed Third Party Data Feeds from FIDS; rather, they could obtain them from other third parties and transport them into the MDC, via telecom equipment, in order to redistribute them to other Users. Whether they are Users or third party vendors outside the MDC, actual or future competitors of the Exchange would not have to pay the Exchange for the Proposed Third Party System or Proposed Third Party Data Feed itself.
Nor does the Exchange believe that FIDS has a competitive advantage over any third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds by virtue of the fact that ICE owns and operates the MDC's meet-me-rooms. Users purchasing Access or Connectivity—like Users of any other colocation service—would require a circuit connecting out of the MDC, and in most cases, such circuits are provided by third-party Telecoms. Currently, 16 Telecoms operate in the meet-me-rooms and provide a variety of circuit choices. It is in the Exchange's best interest to set the fees that Telecoms pay to operate in the meet-me-rooms at a reasonable level
If anything, the Exchange would be subject to a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis third-party competitors offering access to the Proposed Third Party Systems or connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. Third-party competitors are not subject to the Commission's filing requirements, and therefore can freely change their services and pricing in response to competitive forces. In contrast, the Exchange's service and pricing would be standardized as set out in this filing, and the Exchange would be unable to respond to pricing pressure from its competitors without seeking a formal fee change in a filing before the Commission.
The Proposed Pass-Through Edit would not impose any burden on competition. It is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with adding clarity as to who may charge redistribution fees.
The changes would not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
90 FR 14669, April 3, 2025.
Friday, June 6, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
The Crypto Task Force roundtable scheduled for Friday, June 6, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., has been changed to Monday, June 9, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
On March 10, 2025, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (now known as NYSE Texas, Inc., “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
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 amendments to (1) Rules 5, 7.18, and 8 to permit the listing and trading of certain Exchange Traded Products (“ETPs”) on the
Current rules permit the trading on the Exchange of securities, including certain ETPs, on an unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) basis. Rule 1.1(k) defines “UTP Exchange Traded Product” to mean one of the following ETPs that trades on the Exchange on a UTP basis:
• Equity Linked Notes, Investment Company Units listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) and Index Fund Shares listed pursuant to Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”) Rule 14.11(c) or Nasdaq Stock Exchange LLC (“Nasdaq”) Rule 5705(b);
• Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes;
• Equity Gold Shares;
• Equity Index-Linked Securities;
• Commodity-Linked Securities;
• Currency-Linked Securities;
• Fixed-Income Index-Linked Securities;
• Futures-Linked Securities;
• Multifactor-Index-Linked Securities;
• Trust Certificates;
• Currency and Index Warrants;
• Portfolio Depository Receipts;
• Trust Issued Receipts;
• Commodity-Based Trust Shares;
• Currency Trust Shares;
• Commodity Index Trust Shares;
• Commodity Futures Trust Shares;
• Partnership Units;
• Paired Trust Shares;
• Trust Units, Managed Fund Shares;
• Managed Trust Securities;
• Managed Portfolio Shares; and
• Active Proxy Portfolio Shares listed pursuant to NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 8.601-E, Tracking Fund Shares listed pursuant to Cboe BZX Rule 14.11(m), and Proxy Portfolio Shares listed pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5750.
The Exchange proposes substantially identical rules to those of NYSE Arca for the qualification and listing of ETPs on the Exchange. Each proposed rule corresponds to the same rule number as the NYSE Arca rule on which it is based and each is being adopted in substantially the same form.
The Exchange proposes certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes throughout the proposed rules, as follows. In addition to minor spelling, grammatical and other similar changes and edits, the Exchange proposes to use:
• “Exchange” rather than “NYSE Arca” or “NYSE Arca Marketplace”;
• “will” rather than “shall”;
• “Participant” rather than “ETP Holder” to reflect the Exchange's membership structure; and
• “Core Trading Hours” rather than “NYSE Arca Marketplace trading hours.”
Further, as discussed below, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18 (Halts) to add a new section (c)(2) governing trading halts for listed ETPs based on the corresponding NYSE Arca rule. The proposed rules would accordingly reference Rule 7.18.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1.1, which sets forth definitions of terms used in Exchange rules, including the terms “Exchange Traded Product” and “UTP Exchange Traded Product.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to conform these terms with NYSE Arca Rule 1.1, which uses the terms “Derivative Securities Product” and “UTP Derivative Securities Product.” In addition, the Exchange would amend the definition of “Derivative Securities Product” to include Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(8), Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) Rule 5.2(j)(8), Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to Cboe BZX Rule 14.11(l), and Exchange Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5704 as additional types of ETPs that may trade on the Exchange.
To effect these changes, the Exchange proposes to amend the heading of the definition and the text of the Rule to replace “Exchange Traded” with “Derivative Securities” in conformity with NYSE Arca Rule 1.1 and add the following clause from that definition which reads “With respect to cash equity securities traded on the Exchange,” to the first sentence of the Rule. In addition, the Exchange would add a bullet point listing “Exchange Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to NYSE Arca, Inc. Rule 5.2-E(j)(8), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) Rule 5.2(j)(8), or Cboe BZX Rule 14.11(l) and Exchange Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rule 5704” at the end of Rule 1.1 to include them in the enumerated list of Derivative Securities Products that may trade on the Exchange. The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to accommodate the addition of this bullet point as the final item in the bulleted list in Rule 1.1.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would ensure that the amended definition of “Derivative Securities Product” in Rule 1.1 reflects a complete list of Derivative Securities Products that may trade on the Exchange, thereby improving the clarity and transparency of Exchange Rules.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5, titled “Trading on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis,”
Proposed Rules 5.2(j)(2)-(j)(8) would permit the Exchange to list and trade the following ETPs:
• Equity Linked Notes that (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(2));
• Investment Company Units (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(3));
• Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4));
• Equity Gold Shares (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(5));
• Equity Index Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(6));
• Trust Certificates (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(7)); and
• Exchange-Traded Securities (proposed Rule 5.2(j)(8)).
The text of these proposed rules is identical to NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(2)-5.2(j)(8), other than certain non-substantive and technical differences explained below.
In order to maintain the same rule numbers as the NYSE Arca rules, the
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(2) would provide rules for the listing and trading of ELNs. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(2).
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(3) would provide rules for the listing and trading of investment company units, a security that represents an interest in a registered investment company that could be organized as a unit investment trust, an open-end management investment company, or similar entity. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3).
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4) would provide rules for the listing and trading of index-linked exchangeable notes, which are debt securities exchangeable at the option of the holder (subject to certain requirements). In addition to certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, the Exchange proposes the following additional non-substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(4):
• To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(4), an index-linked exchangeable note and its issuer must meet the criteria set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(1) (Other Securities), except that the minimum public distribution would be 150,000 notes with a minimum of 400 public note-holders unless traded in thousand dollar denominations, in which case there is no minimum public distribution and number of holders. The Exchange proposes to reference Article 22, Rule 13 (Tier 1 Listing Requirements for Other Securities), the Exchange's rule that is comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(1), in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4) in order to establish the criteria an issuer and issue must satisfy.
• To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(4), an index to which an exchangeable note is linked and its underlying securities must meet (1) the procedures in NYSE Arca Rules 5.13-O(b)-(c); or (2) the criteria set forth in subsections (C) and (D) of NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(2), the index concentration limits set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.13-O(b)(6), and Rule 5.13-O(b)(12) insofar as it relates to Rule 5.13-O(b)(6).
The Exchange does not have and is not proposing a rule for listing of index option contracts comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.13-O. The Exchange hence proposes to retain the reference to NYSE Arca Rule 5.13-O in paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4) and apply the criteria set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.13-O in determining whether an index underlying an index-linked exchangeable note satisfies the requirements of proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4)(d).
• Replace “further dealings of the Exchange” in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(4)(f)(v) with “further dealings on the Exchange” in proposed Rule 5.2(j)(4)(f)(v).
• Finally, the Exchange proposes to reference its delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 in subsections (f) and (g) for NYSE Arca's delisting rule.
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(5) would provide rules for the listing and trading of equity gold shares, which represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in and ownership of the Equity Gold Trust. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(5).
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(6) would provide rules for the listing and trading of index-linked securities, which are certificates representing an interest in a special purpose trust created pursuant to a trust agreement. In addition to certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, the Exchange proposes the following additional non-substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6):
• To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6), both the issue and issuer of an index-linked security must meet the criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(1) (Other Securities), with certain specified exceptions. The Exchange proposes to reference Article 22, Rule 13 (Tier 1 Listing Requirements for Other Securities), the Exchange's rule that is comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(1), in proposed Rule 5.2(j)(6) in order to establish the criteria an issue and issuer must satisfy.
• The listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(6) reference NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O in describing the criteria for securities that compose 90% of an index's numerical value and at least 80% of the total number of components. Since the Exchange does not have and is not proposing a rule comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O, the Exchange proposes to reference to NYSE Arca Rule 5.3-O in paragraph (B)(I)(1)(b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 5.2(j)(6) establishing the initial listing criteria that an index must meet to trade on the Exchange.
• Finally, the Exchange proposes to reference its delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule.
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(7) would provide rules for the listing and trading of trust certificates, which are securities representing an interest in a special purpose trust created pursuant to a trust agreement.
In addition to certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, the Exchange proposes
• Commentary .08 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(7) provides that, in the event that the Trust Certificates are exchangeable at the option of the holder and contains an Index Warrant, then the ETP Holder must ensure that the holder's account is approved for options trading in accordance with NYSE Arca Rule 9.2-E
• The Exchange proposes to reference its delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule.
Proposed Rule 5.2(j)(8) would establish “generic” listing standards for listing and trading ETPs that are permitted to operate in reliance on Rule 6c-11 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”). Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(8).
Proposed Rule 5.5 would set forth additional continued listing standards and procedures that the Exchange would undertake for non-compliant ETPs. The text of these proposed rules is identical to NYSE Arca Rules 5.5-E(g)(2), (i)-1, and (j)-1, other than certain non-substantive and technical differences described above. In order to maintain the same rule numbers as the NYSE Arca rules with respect to rules that the Exchange does not propose to adopt, the Exchange would mark paragraphs 5.5(a)-(g),
Proposed Rule 5.5(g)(2) would set forth continued listing criteria, halt parameters and delisting criteria for investment company units listed under proposed Rule 5.2(j)(3). Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(g)(2).
Proposed Rule 5.5(i)-1 would set forth continued listing criteria and delisting criteria for securities listed pursuant to Article 22, Rule 13. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(g)(2).
Proposed Rule 5.5(j)-1 would set forth continued listing criteria and delisting criteria for ELNs listed under proposed Rule 5.2(j)(2). Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(j)-1.
The Exchange proposes new Rule 7.18(c)(2) modeled on NYSE Arca Rule 7.18-E(d)(2) that would govern trading halts for listed ETPs for which a Net Asset Value (“NAV”) (and, in the case of Managed Fund Shares under proposed Rule 8.600 and Managed Trust Securities under proposed Rule 8.700, a Disclosed Portfolio), is disseminated. Under the proposed rule, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV (or in the case of Managed Fund Shares or Managed Trust Securities, the Disclosed Portfolio) is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the affected ETP on the Exchange until such time as the NAV (or in the case of Managed Fund Shares or Managed Trust Securities, the Disclosed Portfolio, as applicable) is available to all market participants.
Except for certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, there are no differences between proposed Rule 7.18(c)(2) and NYSE Arca Rule 7.18-E(d)(2).
The Exchange proposes rules to permit the Exchange to list and trade the following securities:
• Currency and Index Warrants (proposed Rules 8.1-8.13);
• Portfolio Depositary Receipts (proposed Rule 8.100);
• Trust Issued Receipts (proposed Rule 8.200);
• Commodity Based Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.201);
• Currency Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.202);
• Commodity Index Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.203);
• Commodity Futures Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.204);
• Partnership Units (proposed Rule 8.300);
• Paired Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.400);
• Trust Units (proposed Rule 8.500);
• Managed Fund Shares (proposed Rule 8.600);
• Active Proxy Portfolio Shares (proposed Rule 8.601);
• Managed Trust Securities (proposed Rule 8.700); and
• Managed Portfolio Shares (proposed Rule 8.900).
The Exchange proposes to reserve Rule 8.100(g) to maintain the same numbering as the NYSE Arca rules. Once again, except for the non-substantive and technical differences
Proposed Rules 8.1-8.13 would provide rules for the listing and trading (including sales-practice rules such as those relating to suitability and supervision of accounts) of currency and index warrants. In addition to certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and the additional non-substantive differences with respect to specific rules described below, there are no substantive differences between the proposed rules and NYSE Arca Rules 8.1-E through 8.13-E.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proposed Rule 8.100 would establish rules to list and trade portfolio depositary receipts, a security based on a unit investment trust that holds securities comprising an index or portfolio underlying a series of portfolio depositary receipts. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.100-E.
Proposed Rule 8.200 would establish rules to list and trade trust issued receipts, a security issued by a trust that holds specific securities deposited with the Trust. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E.
Proposed Rule 8.201 would establish rules to list and trade commodity-based trust shares, a security issued by a trust that holds a specified commodity deposited with the trust or a specified commodity and cash. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E.
Proposed Rule 8.202 would establish rules to list and trade currency trust shares, a security issued by a trust that holds a specified non-U.S. currency or currencies deposited with the Trust. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.202-E.
Proposed Rule 8.203 would establish rules to list and trade commodity index trust shares, a security that is a commodity pool as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations thereunder, that is managed by a commodity pool operator registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and that holds long positions in futures contracts on a specified commodity index, or interests in a commodity pool which, in turn, holds such long positions. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.203-E. The Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in the first sentence of subsection (d) to replace “one more more” with “one or more.”
Proposed Rule 8.204 would establish rules to list and trade commodity futures trust shares, a security issued by a trust that is a commodity pool as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations thereunder, that is managed by a commodity pool operator registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and that holds positions in futures contracts that track the performance of a specified commodity, or interests in a commodity pool which, in turn, holds such positions. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule and the Exchange's books and records rule in Article 11, Rule 2 for NYSE Arca's rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.204-E.
Proposed Rule 8.300 would establish rules to list and trade partnership units, a security issued by a partnership that invests in any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, commodities and/or securities and that is issued and redeemed daily in specified aggregate amounts at net asset value. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule and the Exchange's books and records rule in Article 11, Rule 2 for NYSE Arca's rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.300-E.
Proposed Rule 8.400 would establish rules to list and trade paired trust shares, which can be of a “holding” or “tradeable” variety. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule and the Exchange's books and records rule in Article 11, Rule 2 for NYSE Arca's rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.400-E.
Proposed Rule 8.500 would establish rules to list and trade trust units, a security issued by a trust or similar entity constituted as a commodity pool that holds investments comprising or otherwise based on any combination of futures contracts, options on futures contracts, forward contracts, swap contracts, commodities and/or securities. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.500-E.
Proposed Rule 8.600 would establish rules to list and trade managed fund shares, a security that represents an interest in a registered investment company organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the investment company's investment adviser consistent with its investment objectives and policies. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.
Proposed Rule 8.601 would establish rules to list and trade active proxy portfolio shares, a security issued by a registered investment company organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the investment company's investment adviser consistent with its investment objectives and policies. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above, deletion of “pursuant to unlisted trading privileges” and the reference to subsection (d)(1) of NYSE Arca Rule 7.18 in proposed Rule 8.601(d)(2)(D)(ii), and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E.
Proposed Rule 8.700 would establish rules to list and trade managed trust securities, a security registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and issued by a trust that is a commodity pool as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations thereunder, is not registered or required to be registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and managed by a commodity pool operator registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that holds long and/or short positions in exchange-traded futures contracts and/or certain currency forward contracts and/or swaps. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule and the Exchange's books and records rule in Article 11, Rule 2 for NYSE Arca's rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.700-E.
Proposed Rule 8.900 would establish rules to list and trade managed portfolio shares, a security registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and organized as an open-end management investment company that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the investment company's investment adviser. Other than certain non-substantive, technical and conforming changes described above and substitution of the Exchange's delisting rule contained in Article 22, Rule 4 for NYSE Arca's delisting rule, there are no differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E.
The Exchange's listing rules are set forth in Article 22. The Exchange proposes to delete the following listing rule that would be superseded by the ETP listing and trading rules in proposed Rules 5 and 8:
• Article 22, Rule 24 (Investment Company Units);
• Article 22, Rule 25 (Portfolio Depositary Receipts);
• Article 22, Rule 26 (Equity-Linked Debt Securities); and
• Article 22, Rule 27 (Trust Issued Receipts).
The remaining Article 22 rules would be re-numbered. Article 22, Rule 28 (Additional Requirements for Listed Securities Issued by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. or its Affiliates) would become Article 22, Rule 24 and Article 22, Rule 29 (Erroneously Awarded Compensation) would become Article 22, Rule 25.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change would make the Exchange's rules more accessible and add clarity and transparency to its rule by removing superseded text.
The Exchange represents that listed ETPs would be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor the Exchange's listing and trading of ETPs in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of relevant parties for relevant trading violations. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in ETPs, as well as certain other securities and financial instruments underlying such ETPs, with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”). The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in ETPs and financial instruments from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in ETPs, as well as certain other securities and financial instruments underlying such ETPs, from markets and other entities with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”). Further, the Exchange's affiliates, the NYSE and NYSE Arca, currently list ETPs pursuant to rules that are substantially identical to the rules proposed by the Exchange in this filing. NYSE Regulation conducts initial and continued listing reviews for ETPs listed on the NYSE and NYSE Arca. The Exchange represents that NYSE Regulation will conduct initial and continued listing reviews of ETPs listed on the Exchange in the same manner as it does for the NYSE and NYSE Arca.
The Exchange notes that Participants, including Market Makers,
Commentary .01(b)(1) and Commentary .02(b) to proposed Rule 5.2(j)(3) (applicable to Investment Company Units) and Commentary .06 to proposed Rule 8.600 (applicable to Managed Fund Shares) require the establishment and maintenance of a “firewall” around personnel who have access to information concerning changes to an index or the composition and/or changes to a fund's portfolio; and that specified persons or entities be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the applicable index or portfolio.
In the Rule 6c-11 Release, the Commission, in the context of index-based ETFs with affiliated index providers (“self-indexed ETFs”), noted the federal securities law provisions that currently relate to implementation by funds of appropriate measures to deal with misuse of non-public information.
The Exchange notes that proposed Commentary .02(a) to Rule 5.2(j)(8) provides that, with respect to series of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares that are based on an index, if the underlying index is maintained by a broker-dealer or fund adviser, the broker-dealer or fund adviser will erect and maintain a “fire wall” around the personnel who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index and the index shall be calculated by a third party who is not a broker-dealer or fund advisor. In addition, proposed Commentary .02(b) to Rule 5.2(j)(8) provides that, with respect to series of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares that are actively managed if, the investment adviser to the Exchange-Traded Fund issuing Exchange-Traded Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Exchange-Traded Fund portfolio. Personnel who make decisions on the applicable Exchange-Traded Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable Exchange-Traded Fund portfolio.
As noted, proposed Rule is based on NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(8). The Exchange believes that adopting the same generic standards for Exchange-Traded Fund Shares would facilitate efficient procedures for ETFs that are permitted to operate in reliance on Rule 6c-11. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule is, like its NYSE Arca counterpart, fully consistent with, and will further, the Commission's goals in adopting Rule 6c-11.
For all of the reasons stated above, the proposal is therefore consistent with the requirements of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the above principles. By providing rules for the listing and trading of ETPs, the Exchange believes its proposal would lead to the addition of liquidity to the broader market and to increased competition among the existing group of liquidity providers. The Exchange also believes that, by so doing, the proposed rule change would encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the exchange market, and provide market participants with improved price discovery, increased liquidity, more competitive quotes and greater price improvement for listed ETPs.
The Exchange further believes that listing ETPs on the Exchange would help raise investors' confidence in the fairness of the market, generally, and their transactions in particular. As such, the listing of ETPs would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions, enhance the mechanism of a free and open market, and promote fair and orderly markets in securities on the Exchange.
The proposal is also designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by way of initial and continued listing standards which, if not maintained, would result in the discontinuation of trading in the affected products. These requirements, together with the applicable Exchange trading rules (which apply to the proposed products), ensure that no investor would have an unfair advantage over another respecting the trading of the subject products. On the contrary, all investors would have the same access to, and use of, information concerning the specific products and trading in the specific products, all to the benefit of public customers and the marketplace as a whole. The proposal is intended to ensure that investors receive
Furthermore, the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adopting rules that would lead ultimately to the listing and trading of new products on the Exchange. The proposed changes do nothing more than match Exchange rules with what is currently available on other exchanges for the listing of ETPs. The Exchange believes that by allowing for listing opportunities on the Exchange that are already allowed by rule on another market, the proposal would offer another venue for listing ETPs and thereby promote broader competition among exchanges. The Exchange believes that individuals and entities permitted to list ETPs on the Exchange should enhance competition within the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and customers and other investors in the national market system should benefit from more depth and liquidity in the market for the ETPs.
Additionally, the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, as trading would be subject to existing Exchange trading rules, together with specific requirements for registered market makers, books and record production, surveillance procedures, suitability and prospectus requirements, and requisite Exchange approvals, all set forth above. The proposed rule changes accomplish these objectives by enhancing Exchange rules by clarifying that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange rule filings to list an ETP, are considered continued listing standards. Additionally, the ETP rules will also require that issuers of securities listed under proposed rule must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance and to clarify that deficiencies will be subject to the delisting process in Article 22, Rule 4. The Exchange believes that these proposed rules will enhance the Exchange's rules, thereby serving to improve the national market system and protect investors and the public interest. In addition, as noted, under the proposal Participants would be subject to the Exchange's structure for trading listed securities, including supervision and books and records requirements, and Market Makers would be subject to the more specific obligations and limitations of Market Makers set forth in Exchange Rules 7.20 through 7.24, including Market Maker registration and obligations, such as the responsibility to engage in a course of dealings for their own account to assist in the maintenance, insofar as reasonably practicable, of fair and orderly markets on the Exchange as well as minimum performance standards for Designated Market Makers.
With respect to the deletion of superseded listing rules in Article 22, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market by eliminating rules that would be superseded, thereby improving the clarity of the Exchange's rules and enabling market participants to more easily navigate the Exchange's rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would protect investors and the public interest because the deletion of obsolete text would make the Exchange's rules more accessible and transparent.
Finally, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather to adopt new rules that allow the Exchange to list and trade ETPs. The proposed rules are identical to the rules of NYSE Arca (other than with respect to certain non-substantive and technical changes described above), which currently lists ETPs pursuant to the same rule set. These proposed rules support competition by allowing for ETP listings on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather to adopt new rules that allow the Exchange to list and trade ETPs. The proposed rules are identical to the rules of NYSE Arca (other than with respect to certain non-substantive and technical changes described above), which currently lists ETPs pursuant to the same rule set. The proposed rules in fact support competition by allowing for ETP listings on the Exchange. Limiting trading of ETPs on the Exchange solely to UTP securities limits competition in that there are certain products that the Exchange cannot list, while other exchanges, with identical listing rules, can list such products. The proposed rule change would thus promote competition by allowing the Exchange to compete with other national securities exchanges for the listing and trading of ETPs. With respect to the proposed deletion of obsolete listing rules, the proposed changes would not have any impact on competition, because they are solely designed to eliminate obsolete text.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange proposes to: (1) amend Exchange Rules 5, 7.18, and 8 to permit the listing and trading of shares of certain ETPs on the Exchange; (2) amend Exchange Rule 1.1 to change the definition of “Exchange-Traded Product” to “Derivative Securities Product” and include Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in the definition; and (3) delete the existing rules in Exchange Article 22, Rules 24-27 that would become redundant as a result of the
The Exchange states that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by, among other things, adding liquidity to the broader market and increasing competition among existing liquidity providers, as well as promoting continuity across the listing standards of the NYSE exchanges. The Exchange's ETP listing rules, as proposed to be amended, are substantially similar to the equivalent rules of NYSE Arca, and do not present any novel or unique regulatory issues.
This approval order is based on all the Exchange's representations, including the representations relating to the Exchange's surveillance procedures. Specifically, the Exchange represents that listed ETPs would be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
In addition, the Exchange represents that Participants, including Market Makers,
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4863-DR), dated April 4, 2025.
Issued on April 28, 2025.
Sharon Henderson, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Virginia, dated April 4, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 13224, as amended (“E.O. 13224” or “Order”), I hereby determine that the persons known as Viv Ansanm (also known as Living Together, G-9, G9 Family and Allies, G9 Fanmi e Alye, The Revolutionary Forces of the G9 Family and Allies, Fòs Revolisyoné G9 an Fanmi e Alye, G-Pèp, G-People); and Gran Grif (also known as Gran Grif gang, Gran Grif de Savien, Savien gang, Baz Gran Grif) are
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This determination shall be published in the
Delegates from the U.S. and Mexican governments, the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and the Mexican states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Laredo, and Tamaulipas will participate in an in-person plenary meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025, and Wednesday, June 11, 2025, in Mexico City.
For further information on the meeting and/or to attend the public session, please contact Beney Lee, Border Affairs Officer, via email at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss operational matters involving existing and proposed international bridges and border crossings and their related infrastructure and to exchange technical information as well as views on policy. This meeting will include a public session on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m. This session will allow interested parties with views on proposed bridges and border crossings and related projects to make presentations to the delegations and members of the public.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Noah Davis” at the Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Cultural Center, Los Angeles, California; the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Based upon a review of the Administrative Records assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I have concluded that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to: Viv Ansanm (also known as Living Together, G-9, G9 Family and Allies, G9 Fanmi e Alye, The Revolutionary Forces of the G9 Family and Allies, Fòs Revolisyoné G9 an Fanmi e Alye, G-Pèp, G-People); and Gran Grif (also known as Gran Grif gang, Gran Grif de Savien, Savien gang, Baz Gran Grif).
Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organizations and their respective aliases as Foreign Terrorist Organizations pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
This determination shall be published in the
Marquette Rail, LLC (MQT), a Class III railroad, has filed a verified notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.41 to continue to lease from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), and operate the following several segments of rail line in Michigan totaling approximately
According to the verified notice,
According to the verified notice, the lease includes an interchange commitment. MQT has provided additional information regarding the interchange commitment, as required by 49 CFR 1150.43(h).
MQT certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and that its annual revenues currently exceed $5,000,000. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.42(e), if a carrier's projected annual revenues will exceed $5 million, it must, at least 60 days before the exemption becomes effective, post a notice of its intent to undertake the proposed transaction at the workplace of the employees on the affected lines, serve a copy of the notice on the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected lines, and certify to the Board that it has done so. However, MQT has requested waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice requirement. MQT's waiver request will be addressed in a separate decision. The Board will establish the effective date of the exemption in its separate decision on the waiver request.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than May 2, 2025.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36831, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on MQT's representative, Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Suite 2620, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
According to MQT, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
By petition filed on September 26, 2024, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), requests that the Board permit the trackage rights granted to it under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) in Docket No. FD 36776 to expire under the terms agreed to by CSXT and the grantor of the rights, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR).
As explained in CSXT's verified notice of exemption in Docket No. FD 36776, NSR has agreed to grant CSXT overhead trackage rights over a portion of NSR's Bay Route and portions of its Harrisburg Route.
In its petition, CSXT asks the Board to partially revoke the exemption as necessary to permit the trackage rights to expire as agreed to by the parties. (CSXT Pet. 2, 4-5.) CSXT argues that granting this petition would promote the rail transportation policy at 49 U.S.C. 10101, would be consistent with the limited scope of the transaction, and would not have an adverse effect on shippers. (CSXT Pet. 4.) In addition, CSXT asserts that the Board has granted similar petitions for partial revocation to permit temporary trackage rights to expire. (
Although CSXT and NSR have expressly agreed on the duration of the proposed trackage rights, trackage rights approved under the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) typically remain effective indefinitely, regardless of any contract provisions. At times, however, the Board has taken action to allow such
Permitting the trackage rights to expire as agreed to by the parties would eliminate the need for CSXT to separately seek discontinuance authority at a later date, thereby minimizing the need for federal regulatory control (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), reducing regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the rail industry (49 U.S.C. 10101(7)), and allowing for the expeditious handling and resolution of this transaction (49 U.S.C. 10101(15)). Moreover, doing so would not result in an abuse of market power, as the termination will be permitted to occur only upon resumption of CSXT's service through the HST.
To provide the statutorily mandated protection to any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of trackage rights, the Board will impose the employee protective conditions set forth in
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
1. CSXT's petition to permit expiration of the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36776 per the agreement of the parties is granted.
2. As discussed above, the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36776 are permitted to expire, subject to the employee protective conditions set forth in
3. Within five days of CSXT's resumption of service through the HST following completion of the project, CSXT shall file with the Board a notice to that effect.
4. Notice of this decision will be published in the
5. This decision is effective on May 30, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by May 12, 2025. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by May 20, 2025.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
By petition filed on September 30, 2024, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) requests that the Board permit the trackage rights granted to it under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) in Docket No. FD 36790 to expire under the terms agreed to by NSR and the grantor of the rights, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT).
As explained in NSR's verified notice of exemption in Docket No. FD 36790, CSXT has agreed to grant NSR trackage rights over an approximately 95-mile CSXT rail line between Falls, Pa., at or near CP River, CSXT milepost QA 2, and Baltimore, Md., including all necessary trackage within CSXT's Bayview Yard, and between the western end of CSXT's Bayview Yard (MP BAL 0.0 ±) and a connection at MP BAL 0.5 ± (the Lines). NSR Verified Notice of Exemption 3,
In its petition, NSR asks the Board to partially revoke the exemption as necessary to permit the trackage rights to expire as agreed to by the parties. (NSR Pet. 2.) NSR argues that granting this petition would promote the rail transportation policy at 49 U.S.C. 10101, would be consistent with the limited scope of the transaction, and would not have an adverse effect on shippers. (NSR Pet. 3-4.) In addition, NSR asserts that the Board has granted similar petitions for partial revocation to permit temporary trackage rights to expire. (NSR Pet. 4.)
Although NSR and CSXT have expressly agreed on the duration of the proposed trackage rights, trackage rights approved under the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) typically remain effective indefinitely, regardless of any contract provisions. At times, however, the Board has taken action to allow such rights to expire after a limited time rather than lasting in perpetuity, based on the parties' agreement.
Permitting the trackage rights to expire as agreed to by the parties would eliminate the need for NSR to separately seek discontinuance authority at a later date, thereby minimizing the need for federal regulatory control (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), reducing regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the rail industry (49 U.S.C. 10101(7)), and allowing for the expeditious handling and resolution of this transaction (49 U.S.C. 10101(15)). Moreover, doing so would not result in an abuse of market power, as the termination will be permitted to occur only upon resumption of NSR's service through the HST, effectively undoing the temporary rerouting of NSR's rail traffic as overhead on the Lines.
To provide the statutorily mandated protection to any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of trackage rights, the Board will impose the employee protective conditions set forth in
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
1. NSR's petition to permit expiration of the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36790 per the agreement of the parties is granted.
2. As discussed above, the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36790 are permitted to expire, subject to the employee protective conditions set forth in
3. Within five days of NSR's resumption of service through the HST following completion of the project, NSR shall file with the Board a notice to that effect.
4. Notice of this decision will be published in the
5. This decision is effective on May 30, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by May 12, 2025. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by May 20, 2025.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
By petition filed on December 26, 2024, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) requests that the Board permit the trackage rights granted to it under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) in Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 10) to expire under the terms agreed to by BNSF and the grantor of the rights, Union Pacific Railroad (UP).
As explained by BNSF in its verified notice of exemption in Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 10), BNSF and UP entered into an agreement granting BNSF restricted, local trackage rights over two rail lines owned by UP between (1) UP milepost 93.2 at Stockton, Cal., on UP's Oakland Subdivision, and UP milepost 219.4 at Elsey, Cal., on UP's Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 126.2 miles; and (2) UP milepost 219.4 at Elsey, and UP milepost 280.7 at Keddie, Cal., on UP's Canyon Subdivision, a distance of 61.3 miles (collectively, the Lines). BNSF Verified Notice of Exemption 2,
In its petition, BNSF asks the Board to partially revoke the exemption as necessary to permit the trackage rights to expire at midnight on December 31, 2025, pursuant to the parties' agreement. (
Although BNSF and UP have expressly agreed on the duration of the proposed trackage rights, trackage rights approved under the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) typically remain effective indefinitely, regardless of any contract provisions. At times, however, the Board has taken action to allow such rights to expire after a limited time rather than lasting in perpetuity, based on the parties' agreement.
Permitting the trackage rights to expire at the end of 2025 would eliminate the need for BNSF to separately seek discontinuance authority at a later date, thereby minimizing the need for federal regulatory control (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), reducing regulatory barriers to entry into and exit from the rail industry (49 U.S.C. 10101(7)), and allowing for the expeditious handling and resolution of this transaction (49 U.S.C. 10101(15)). Moreover, doing so would not result in an abuse of market power because the trackage rights at issue are solely to allow BNSF to move empty and loaded unit ballast trains to and from the ballast pit in Elsey for use in BNSF's maintenance-of-way projects. (
To provide the statutorily mandated protection to any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance of trackage rights, the Board will impose the employee protective conditions set forth in
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
1. BNSF's petition to permit expiration of the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 10) per the agreement of the parties is granted.
2. As discussed above, the trackage rights in Docket No. FD 36377 (Sub-No. 10) are permitted to expire at midnight on December 31, 2025, subject to the employee protective conditions set forth in
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the
4. This decision is effective on May 30, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by May 12, 2025. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed by May 20, 2025.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Acceptance of Oxnard Airport noise exposure map.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure map submitted by County of Ventura for Oxnard Airport is compliant with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure map is April 29, 2025.
Gail M. Campos, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, California 90045. Telephone 424-405-7269.
The FAA determined the noise exposure map submitted by the County of Ventura for Oxnard Airport, is in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, effective April 29, 2025. Under title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) section 47503, an airport operator may submit to the FAA, noise exposure maps depicting non-compatible uses as of the date such map is submitted, a description of estimated aircraft operations during a forecast period that is at least five years in the future and how those operations will affect the map. A noise exposure map must be prepared in accordance with title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, the regulations promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47502 and developed in consultation with public agencies and planning authorities in the area surrounding the airport, state and Federal agencies, interested and affected parties in the local community, and aeronautical users of the airport. In addition, an airport operator that submitted a noise exposure map, which the FAA determined is compliant with statutory and regulatory requirements, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that sets forth measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA completed its review of the noise exposure map and supporting documentation submitted by the County of Ventura and determined the noise exposure map and accompanying documentation are compliant with applicable requirements. The documentation that constitutes the Noise Exposure Map includes: “Exhibit 1—2022 Existing Noise Exposure Map” and “Exhibit 2—2027 Future Noise Exposure Map” which addresses the current and forecast NEM graphics. The “Oxnard Airport 14 CFR part 150 Noise Exposure Map Update,” dated September 2024, complies all other applicable narrative, graphic, and tabular representations of the data including airport description, flight track data, aircraft operations data, aviation forecast data, on-airport and off-airport land use information as required by 14 CFR 150.101 and 49 U.S.C. sections 47503 and 47506. This determination is effective on April 29, 2025. FAA's determination on an airport's noise exposure map is limited to a finding that the noise exposure map was developed in accordance with the 49 U.S.C. sections 47503 and 47506 and procedures contained in 14 CFR part 150, Appendix A. FAA's acceptance of an NEM does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties within noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47506. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under 14 CFR part 150 or through FAA review and acceptance of a noise exposure map. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted a noise exposure map or with those public and planning agencies with which consultation is required under 49 U.S.C. section 47503. The FAA relied on the certification by the airport operator, under of 14 CFR 150.21 that the required consultations and opportunity for public review has been accomplished during the development of the noise exposure maps. Copies of the noise exposure map and supporting documentation and the FAA's evaluation of the noise exposure maps are available for examination at the following locations:
1. Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District Office, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, California 90045.
2. Oxnard Airport, County of Ventura, 555 Airport Way, Suite B, Camarillo, California 93010.
Questions may be directed to the individual listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 17 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0103, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0385, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0329, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0058, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0135, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0137, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0036, Docket No.
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0103, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0385, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0329, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0058, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0135, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0136, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0137, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0036, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0037, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0018), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
The 17 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in § 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 17 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 17 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below.
As of April 21. 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 15 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0124, FMCSA-2014-0103, FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2014-0385, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2016-0002, FMCSA-2017-0058, FMCSA-2018-0135, FMCSA-2018-0136, FMCSA-2018-0137, FMCSA-2020-0027, FMCSA-2022-0036, FMCSA-2022-0037. Their exemptions were applicable as of April 21, 2025, and will expire on April 21, 2027.
As of April 26, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
Freddy Lopez Hernandez (TX); and Martin Vorpahl (WI).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2023-0018. Their exemptions were applicable as of April 26, 2025, and will expire on April 26, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver (1) must report to FMCSA any crashes as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (2) must report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391, within 7 days of the citation and conviction; (3) must submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA; and (4) is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the above-named drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny the applications of two individuals treated with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting operation of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce by persons with a current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope (transient loss of consciousness), dyspnea (shortness of breath), collapse, or congestive heart failure.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding cardiovascular diseases and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope, dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(4)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the April 2007 evidence report, the December 2014 research report, the application, and each individual's medical information in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
On January 15, 2025, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of applications from two individuals requesting an exemption from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(4) and requested comments from the public (90 FR 3997). The public comment period ended on February 14, 2025, and no comments were received.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of the applicants' medical information, available medical and scientific data concerning ICDs, and any relevant public comments received.
In the case of persons with ICDs, the underlying condition for which the ICD was implanted places the individual at high risk for syncope or other unpredictable events known to result in gradual or sudden incapacitation. ICDs may discharge, which could result in loss of ability to safely control a CMV. The December 2014 focused research report referenced previously upholds the findings of the April 2007 report and indicates that the available scientific data on persons with ICDs and CMV driving does not support the conclusion that persons with ICDs are able to meet an equivalent or greater level of safety in operating a CMV as persons without those devices.
The Agency has determined that the available medical and scientific literature and research provides insufficient data to enable the Agency to conclude that granting these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemption. Therefore, the following applicants have been denied an exemption from the physical qualification standards in § 391.41(b)(4):
Micos Mims (AL) and Paul Siefker (OH).
The applicants have, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding their exemption request. The decision letter fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final action by the Agency. The names of these individuals published today summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0046, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0047, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0045, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0047, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0029 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0046, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0047, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0045, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0047, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0029), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The six individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the six applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The six drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and are discussed below.
As of March 17, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0007, FMCSA-2020-0046, FMCSA-2020-0047, FMCSA-2022-0045, or FMCSA-2022-0047. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 17, 2025, and will expire on March 17, 2027.
As of March 31, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Spencer William (OH) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2023-0029. The exemption was applicable as of March 31, 2025 and will expire on March 31, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the six exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 26 individuals for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0023 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in § 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively). In 2008, FMCSA published Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.”
On February 1, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding hearing in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers relevant scientific information and literature, the 2008 Evidence Report, “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety,” any public comments received, and each
The 26 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Robert Erickson, 60, holds a class ABCDM commercial driver's license (CDL) in Wisconsin.
Israel Gilliam, 38, holds a class A CDL in Texas.
Timothy Hogan, 24, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.
Kirk Johnson, 45, holds a class E driver's license in Florida.
Randall Johnson, 54, holds a class D driver's license in Wisconsin.
Dakota Kangas, 25, holds a class D driver's license in Wisconsin.
Camerson Luttrell, 23, holds a class C driver's license in Missouri.
Shane Martin, 55, holds a class DMV driver's license in Alabama.
Shellie Overstreet, 41, holds a class D driver's license in Utah.
Erick Salcido, 25, holds a class C driver's license in Texas.
Rex Shepard, 26, holds a class C driver's license in Maryland.
Sean Sikes, 44, holds a regular driver's license in Indiana.
Jonna Silvia, 63, holds a class 10 driver's license in Rhode Island.
David Warning, 40, holds a class 10 driver's license in Rhode Island.
Kerry Werner, 39, holds a class E driver's license in Florida.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 23 individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0102, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0104, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0107, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0061, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0138, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0034, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0038, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0039, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0017 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0124, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0102, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0104, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0107, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0061, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0138, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0034, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0038, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0039, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0017), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, (35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971), respectively).
The 23 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in § 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 23 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement. The 23 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of these drivers for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and are discussed below.
As of March 3, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0106, FMCSA-2017-0061, FMCSA-2018-0138, FMCSA-2020-0027, FMCSA-2020-0028, FMCSA-2022-0034, FMCSA-2022-0038, FMCSA-2022-0039, or FMCSA-2022-0049. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 3, 2025, and will expire on March 3, 2027.
As of March 10, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
David Helgerson (WI); and Susan Helgerson (WI).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0124. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 10, 2025, and will expire on March 10, 2027.
As of March 13, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
John Huey (TX); and Scott Putman (TX).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0107. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 13, 2025, and will expire on March 13, 2027.
As of March 19, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Victor Morales (TX) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0106. The exemption was applicable as of March 19, 2025, and will expire on March 19, 2027.
As of March 22, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
William B. Britt (TN); and Michael Lua-Morales (PA).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0137 or
FMCSA-2023-0017. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 22, 2025, and will expire on March 22, 2027.
As of March 29, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0124, FMCSA-2014-0102, or FMCSA-2014-0104. Their exemptions were applicable as of March 29, 2025, and will expire on March 29, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver (1) must report to FMCSA any crashes as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (2) must report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391, within 7 days of the citation and conviction; (3) must submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA; and (4) is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the above-named drivers from the hearing requirement in § 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 17 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0109, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0380, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0008, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0050, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0053, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0047, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0030 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0109, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0380, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0323, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0008, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0313, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0050, Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0053, Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0047, or Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0030), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 17 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 17 applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 17 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to that existing without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below.
As of April 2, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 15 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0109, FMCSA-2014-0380, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2016-0008, FMCSA-2020-0050, FMCSA-2020-0053, or FMCSA-
As of April 26, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Michael Littleton (CO) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2023-0030. The exemption was applicable as of April 26, 2025 and will expire on April 26, 2027.
As of April 30, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Bradley Hollister (PA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0313. The exemption is applicable as of April 30, 2025 and will expire on April 30, 2027
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 35 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0011 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2025-0011), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (ME) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 35 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Shane Addy is a 24-year-old class C license holder in Pennsylvania. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2009. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2010. Their physician states that they are supportive of Shane Addy receiving an exemption.
Erik Bernal is a 39-year-old class C license holder in Wyoming. They have a history of focal epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2017. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since March 2020. Their physician states that they are supportive of Erik Bernal receiving an exemption.
Benjamin Billat is a 37-year-old class D license holder in Minnesota. They have a history of provoked seizures and have been seizure free since August 28, 2019. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over two years. Their physician states that they are supportive of Benjamin Billat receiving an exemption.
Linda Bradt is a 50-year-old class C commercial driver's license (CDL) holder in New York. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since September 2023. Their physician states that they are supportive of Linda Bradt receiving an exemption.
Stephen Carlson is a 21-year-old class C chauffer's license holder in Michigan. They have a history of childhood absence epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2012. They have not taken anti-seizure medication since March 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Stephen Carlson receiving an exemption.
Nicholas Casillan is a 43-year-old class C license holder in California. They have a history of childhood epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2004. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2004. Their physician states that they are supportive of Nicholas Casillan receiving an exemption.
Amanda Fisk is a 38-year-old class B commercial learner's permit holder in Kansas. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 6, 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Amanda Fisk receiving an exemption.
Richard Freys is a 54-year-old class D license holder in Ohio. They have a history of idiopathic epilepsy and have been seizure free since February 2017. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2017. Their physician states that they are supportive of Richard Freys receiving an exemption.
Jacob Griffin is a 21-year-old class BCD CDL holder in Wisconsin. They have a history of rolandic epilepsy and have been seizure free since June 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2018. Their physician states that they are supportive of Jacob Griffin receiving an exemption.
Joseph Gwinnett is a 44-year-old class D license holder in New Jersey. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2021. Their physician states that they are supportive of Joseph Gwinnett receiving an exemption.
Carter Hunt is a 25-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. They have a history of localization-related symptomatic epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since October 2022. Their physician states that they are supportive of Carter Hunt receiving an exemption.
Ryan Jaacks is a 24-year-old class C license holder in Iowa. They have a history of partial symptomatic epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2009. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. Their physician states that they are supportive of Ryan Jaacks receiving an exemption.
Scott Jensen is a 30-year-old class D regular license holder in Wisconsin. They have a history of generalized epilepsy and have been seizure free since March 6, 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 2023. Their physician states that they are supportive of Scott Jensen receiving an exemption.
Theodore Kemak is a 39-year-old class A CDL holder in New York. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. Their physician states that they are supportive of Theodore Kemak receiving an exemption.
Thomas Knight is a 59-year-old class A CDL holder in Georgia. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 1991. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 20 years. Their physician states that they are supportive of Thomas Knight receiving an exemption.
Kurtis Kuhl is a 36-year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. They have a history of seizures and have been seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Kurtis Kuhl receiving an exemption.
Rachel LaFraniere is a 32-year-old class D license holder in Tennessee. They have a history of focal epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2017. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since July 2023. Their physician states that they are supportive of Rachel LaFraniere receiving an exemption.
Matthew Lee is a 48-year-old class D license holder in Connecticut. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2006. They have not taken anti-seizure medication since November 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Matthew John Lee receiving an exemption.
Zachery Lieske is a 22-year-old class D regular license holder in Wisconsin. They have a history of generalized epilepsy and have been seizure free since August 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since May 20, 2021. Their physician states that they are supportive of Zachery Lieske receiving an exemption.
Thomas Mercer is a 46-year-old class C license holder in Georgia. They have a history of petit mal seizure disorder and have been seizure free since January 2, 2002. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2002. Their physician states that they are supportive of Thomas Mercer receiving an exemption.
Elijah Morrisey is a 20-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. They have a history of benign focal epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. Their physician states that they are supportive of Elijah Morrissey receiving an exemption.
Sean O'Dwyer is a 53-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. They have a history of complex partial seizures and have been seizure free since 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Sean O'Dwyer receiving an exemption.
Nikki Peyton is a 36-year-old class A CDL holder in Indiana. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 21, 2019. Their physician states that they are supportive of Nikki Peyton receiving an exemption.
Joseph Platania is a 34-year-old class C license holder in Pennsylvania. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since April 2016. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Joseph Platania receiving an exemption.
Nathan Porcher is a 36-year-old class C license holder in Texas. They have a history of other seizures and have been seizure free since 2017. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since April 19, 2024. Their physician states that they are supportive of Nathan Porcher receiving an exemption.
Samuel Porter is a 32-year-old class D license holder in Illinois. They have a history of tonic clonic seizures and have been seizure free since 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2023. Their physician states that they are supportive of Samuel Porter receiving an exemption.
Lorenzo Rivera is a 22-year-old class D license holder in Ohio. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2015. They have not taken anti-seizure medication since 2017. Their physician states that they are supportive of Lorenzo Rivera receiving an exemption.
Robert Rush is a 49-year-old class CM1 license holder in California. They have a history of nonintractable epilepsy and have been seizure free since the early 2000s. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since December 2022. Their physician states that they are supportive of Robert Rush receiving an exemption.
Ethan Seabury-Kolod is a 38-year-old class A CDL holder in Louisiana. They have a history of single unprovoked seizure and have been seizure free since January 2016. They have never taken anti-seizure medication. Their physician states that they are supportive of Ethan Seabury-Kolod receiving an exemption.
Michael Shea is a 30-year-old class D license holder in New Jersey. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since October 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Michael Shea receiving an exemption.
Brittany Spicer is a 34-year-old class D license holder in Virginia. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2009. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Brittany Spicer receiving an exemption.
Robert Stagg is a 46-year-old class CM1 license holder in California. They have a history of complex partial epilepsy and have been seizure free since October 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since August 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Robert Stagg receiving an exemption.
Jeremy Steele is a 33-year-old class D license holder in Delaware. They have a history of a single unprovoked seizure and have been seizure free since February 2021. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since March 2021. Their physician states that they are supportive of Jeremy Steele receiving an exemption.
Rodney Taylor is a 54-year-old class C license holder in North Carolina. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. Their physician states that they are supportive of Rodney Taylor receiving an exemption.
Alfonso Valdivieso is a 61-year-old class A CDL holder in New York. They have a history of focal epilepsy and have been seizure free since March 2011. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Alfonso Valdivieso receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. FMCSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0506 (Merchant Marine Medals and Awards) is used by MARAD personnel to process
Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2025-0069 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Katrina McRae, 202-366-3198, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew an information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 2133-0542 (U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) Alumni Survey) is being updated to include the following minor changes: removal of gender-related questions, reworded question to reflect the Academy's current learning outcomes, alignment of salary ranges to the current market, and disaggregation of cohort groups at the academic major level. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. MARAD-2025-0068 through one of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be posted without change to
Dr. Lori Townsend, 516-726-5637, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, 300 Steamboat Road, Kings Point, NY 11024, Email:
By Order of the Maritime Administration.
Veterans Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Experience Office (VEO), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2025.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VEO invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VEO's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VEO's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
The VEAC gathers feedback from Veterans, Active Military, Guard/Reservist, Family members, caregivers, providers, and survivors. The VEAC then provides that feedback to VA leaders to measure the success of the outreach event and measure the ease, effectiveness, emotion, and trust from the participants as they exit.
The surveys will further allow the Veterans Experience Office (VEO) to measure whether the needs of the participants were met. Additional areas where the survey results will impact:
• Identifies gaps and challenges in health care, benefits, and service delivery.
• Identifies areas for how VA can best support local efforts in a holistic fashion.
• Identifies areas where there may be barriers to access, and outreach tailored to local communities.
Per FY2021 MILCON House report 116-445, the Committee directs the VA to provide quarterly reports on the status of the implementation of the VEAC pilot program; the effectiveness of the pilot program at reaching Veterans, particularly those in need, and increasing utilization of VA services:
• Congress (Quarterly Congressional Tracking Reports (CTRs).
VEAC surveys afford VEAC participants the ability to provide feedback to VA and allow the customer to share their experiences. VEO uses the customer's feedback to enhance and increase outreach and engagement efforts and determine the direct value of our efforts.
The surveys and its delivery are an innovative approach to measure and improve customer experience based on the “voice of the Veteran.” Through the use of the VSignals digital platform, VEO can identify gaps and challenges in the community, provide information on VA programs, increase access and outreach, identify what is and what is not working, and determine how VA can best support local community efforts in support of Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors.
Survey respondents will be Veterans, Active Military, Guard/Reservist, family members, caregivers, and survivors that attend a VEAC event. Different surveys may be administered participants of events:
1.
2.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey off Western Mexico in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than June 4, 2025.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On November 14, 2024, NMFS received a request from the L-DEO for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey off Western Mexico in the ETP. After sending initial questions to the applicant, L-DEO deferred the IHA request due to vessel clearance issues. On January 29, 2025 L-DEO alerted us that they received clearance but their proposed survey dates had changed. With revised dates, NMFS continued processing the application and it was deemed adequate and complete on March 4, 2025. L-DEO's request is for take of 29 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither L-DEO nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Researchers from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT) and University of New Mexico (UNM), with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), and in collaboration with Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), propose to conduct a low-energy marine seismic survey, using airguns as the acoustic source, and heat probe measurements, conducted from the research vessel (R/V)
The purpose of the proposed survey is to obtain information on the sediment distribution and geologic structure of the Cocos plate and margin wedge, which is necessary for constraining the thermal structure of the subduction zone offshore southern Mexico. The main goal of the proposed seismic surveys is to acquire 2-D seismic reflection data, in conjunction with densely spaced heat probe measurements, to quantify the effects of fluid circulation in oceanic crust on temperatures in the southern Mexico subduction zone.
The
The proposed survey would occur within approximately ~15.5-17° N and 99.5-102° W, off the Pacific coast of Mexico within the EEZ of Mexico, in water depths ranging from approximately 1,000 to 5,300 m. The region where the survey is proposed to occur is depicted in figure 1. Representative survey tracklines are shown; however, some deviation in actual tracklines, including the order of survey operations, could be necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment. Therefore, for the proposed survey, the tracklines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above. The
The procedures to be used for the proposed survey would be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys conducted by L-DEO and would use conventional seismic methodology. The survey would involve one source vessel,
Heat flow data would be acquired with a heat flow probe that takes the temperature of the sediments like a thermometer. Heat probe measurements are made by lowering the probe through the water column and letting it plunge ~3.5 m into the sediment. Measurements consist of two parts—thermal gradient and conductivity—and would be made every ~500-1,000 m. At each measurement site the probe is left in the seafloor for ~15 minutes. After the measurement is taken, the probe is pulled out of the sediment and raised ~200 m above the seafloor, the ship then moves position along the transect, and the process is repeated (referred to as “pogo” mode). During heat flow probe operations, a 12-kilohertz (kHz) bottom-finding pinger would be employed, and an acoustic release would be used once during an initial calibration of the heat probe activities.
The heat flow probe would be equipped with an ultra-short baseline (USBL) transducer acoustic positioning system (or pinger) to allow it to “talk” with the research vessel. The pole-mounted USBL transducer pings once per second to the receiver to locate the heat flow probe location and vice versa. The reflected pings are picked up by a Knudsen Chirp 3260 sub-bottom profiler (SBP). While on station for heat flow measurements, the MBES would be turned off.
In addition to the operations of the airgun array and the heat flow probe, the ocean floor would be mapped with the Kongsberg EM 122 multibeam echosounder (MBES), and a SBP. A Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean Surveyor acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) would be used to measure water current velocities. Take of marine mammals is not expected to occur incidental to use of the MBES, SBP, ADCP, and heat flow probe operations whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other sources. Given their characteristics (
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information about these species (
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' stock assessment reports (SARs)). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific SARs. All values presented in table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the draft 2024 SARs (available online at:
As indicated above, all 29 species in table 1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. As the planned survey lines are outside of the U.S. EEZ, they do not directly overlap with the defined ranges for most U.S. managed stocks (Carretta
Some species could potentially occur in the proposed survey area but are not likely to be encountered due to the rarity of their occurrence. These species include the North Pacific right whale (
In addition to what is included in sections 3 and 4 of the IHA application, and NMFS' website, further detail informing the regional occurrence for select species of particular or unique vulnerability (
The Central America distinct population segment (DPS) equates to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock designated under the MMPA and shown in table 1. The endangered Central America DPS may occur within the proposed survey area, based on the timing of the proposed survey (November-December). Humpbacks from the Central America DPS could be migrating through the survey area at the time of the proposed survey.
Whales in the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock winter off the coasts of Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Costa Rica, and southern Mexico including the states of Oaxaca and Guerrero, with some animals ranging even farther north (Taylor et al. 2021); they summer off California, Oregon, and Washington (Calambokidis et al. 2000).
Nine sightings were made during surveys off the Pacific coast of Mexico in November 2019 (Oedekoven et al. 2021). The central coast of Oaxaca is thought to be a migratory corridor during winter, with whales typically migrating up to 4 km from shore (Heckel et al. 2020). In 2012, 45 sightings were made off Oaxaca (Castillejos-Moguel and Villegas-Zurita 2014
Although there are other stocks of humpback whales found in Mexico near the project area, it's likely that humpbacks from the Mexico DPS (Mexico-North Pacific Stock and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA Stock) would still be migrating south from their northern feeding grounds off of the U.S. west coast and are not likely to be found in the survey area. Additionally, the Mexico DPS's winter breeding grounds are north of the proposed survey area in the Revillagigedos Islands. Therefore, we assume that all humpback whales taken by the proposed survey activities would be from the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock.
Sei whales are less common in the survey area but there have been some reports as summarized below. Sei whales are known to occasionally occur in the Gulf of California (Urbán et al. 2014
Fin whale calls are recorded in the North Pacific year-round (
During summer and fall, sperm whales are widely distributed in the ETP, although they are generally more abundant in deeper “nearshore” waters than far offshore (
The pantropical spotted dolphin is one of the most abundant cetaceans and is distributed worldwide in tropical and some subtropical waters, between ~40° N and 40° S (Jefferson
The spinner dolphin is pantropical in distribution, including oceanic tropical and sub-tropical waters between 40° N and 40° S (Jefferson
During the summer season, most Guadalupe fur seal adults occur at rookeries in Mexico (Carretta et al. 2021). Most breeding and births occur at Isla Guadalupe, off the west coast of Baja California Peninsula; a secondary rookery exists at Isla Benito del Este (Maravilla-Chavez and Lowry 1999; Aurioles-Gamboa et al. 2010). Following the breeding season, adult males tend to move north to forage. All rookeries are outside of the project area as the proposed area is offshore. While at sea, this species is usually solitary but typically gathers in the hundreds to thousands at breeding sites. Guadalupe fur seals prefer rocky habitat for breeding and hauling out. They generally haul out at the base of towering cliffs on shores characterized by solid rock and large lava blocks (Peterson et al. 1968), although they can also inhabit caves and recesses (Belcher and Lee 2002). Guadalupe fur seals are unlikely to be encountered during the proposed seismic survey, as they typically occur farther north. However, Heckel et al. (2020) reported occasional records for Guerrero and Oaxaca.
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024) for a review of available information.
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the “loudness” of a sound and is typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 micropascal (μPa)) and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa) while the received
Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 μPa
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the airgun array considered here. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of this dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: Pulsed and non-pulsed. The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz.
Here, we discuss the effects of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Richardson
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of airgun arrays are reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
Marine mammals, like all mammals, develop increased hearing thresholds over time due to age-related degeneration of auditory pathways and sensory cells of the inner ear. This natural, age-related hearing loss is contrasted by noise-induced hearing loss (Møller, 2012). Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods can experience a noise-induced hearing threshold shift (TS), which NMFS defines as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level as a result of noise exposure (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of TS is customarily expressed in dB. Noise-induced hearing TS can be temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS), and higher-level sound exposures are more likely to cause PTS or other AUD INJ. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024) there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in destruction of tissue, such as the loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser 2021; Finneran 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a PTS. PTS is subsequently defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS does not generally affect more than a limited frequency range, and an animal that has incurred PTS has some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). For marine mammals, AUD INJ is considered to be possible when sound exposures are sufficient to produce 40 dB of TTS measured after exposure (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound. TTS is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024) that represents primarily tissue fatigue (Henderson
In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (
Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS (
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Finneran
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM), and movement recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km, following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-13 km (Madsen
Changes in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs or amplitude of calls (Miller
Cerchio
Castellote
Seismic pulses at average received levels of 131 dB re 1 μPa
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
Forney
Forney
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound exposure, are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196 seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns (considered to be 500
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves sufficiently to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Under certain circumstances, significant masking could disrupt behavioral patterns, which in turn could affect fitness for survival and reproduction. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in a TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in predicting any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data on this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in exceptional situations, reverberation occurs for much or all of the interval between pulses (
Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and their calls usually can be heard between the pulses (
Vessel noise from the
Vessel noise, through masking, can reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal if the frequency of the sound source is close to that used by the animal, and if the sound is present for a significant fraction of time (
Baleen whales are thought to be more sensitive to sound at these low frequencies than are toothed whales (
In summary, project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in marine mammals, and would not be expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the population level. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a usual source of ambient sound (NSF-USGS, 2011).
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or vessel strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal. These interactions are typically associated with large whales (
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 knots (kn, 26 kilometer per hour (kph)), and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn (31 kph). Higher speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton
The
It is possible for vessel strikes to occur while traveling at slow speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel traveling at low speed (5.5 kn (10 kph)) while conducting mapping surveys off the central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is low, we propose a robust vessel strike avoidance protocol (see Proposed Mitigation), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of vessel strike during transit. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving a seismic data acquisition vessel towing gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no preventive measures. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the relatively slow speed of the vessel towing gear, the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals), and the presence of marine mammal observers, the possibility of vessel strike is discountable and, further, were a strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from vessel strike is anticipated, and this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed further in the following analysis.
Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, vessel strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci
There is no conclusive evidence that exposure to airgun noise results in behaviorally-mediated forms of injury. Behaviorally-mediated injury (
To understand why military MFA sonar affects beaked whales differently than airguns do, it is important to note the distinction between behavioral sensitivity and susceptibility to auditory injury. To understand the potential for auditory injury in a particular marine mammal species in relation to a given acoustic signal, the frequency range the species is able to hear is critical, as well as the species' auditory sensitivity to frequencies within that range. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities across all frequencies and, therefore, species are grouped into hearing groups with generalized hearing ranges assigned on the basis of available data (Southall
Military MFA sonar effects beaked whales differently than airguns do because it produces energy at different frequencies than airguns. High-frequency cetacean hearing is generically thought to be best between 8.8 to 110 kHz,
It is important to distinguish between energy (loudness, measured in dB) and frequency (pitch, measured in Hz). In considering the potential impacts of mid-frequency components of airgun noise (1-10 kHz, where beaked whales can be expected to hear) on marine mammal hearing, one needs to account for the energy associated with these higher frequencies and determine what energy is truly “significant.” Although there is mid-frequency energy associated with airgun noise (as expected from a broadband source), airgun sound is predominantly below 1 kHz (Breitzke
Aside from frequency content, there are other significant differences between MFA sonar signals and the sounds produced by airguns that minimize the risk of severe behavioral reactions that could lead to strandings or deaths at sea,
The available scientific literature also provides a useful contrast between airgun noise and MFA sonar regarding the likely risk of behaviorally-mediated injury. There is strong evidence for the association of beaked whale stranding events with MFA sonar use, and particularly detailed accounting of several events is available (
A review of possible stranding associations with seismic surveys (Castellote and Llorens, 2016) states that, “[s]peculation concerning possible links between seismic survey noise and cetacean strandings is available for a dozen events but without convincing causal evidence.” The authors' search of available information found 10 events worth further investigation via a ranking system representing a rough metric of the relative level of confidence offered by the data for inferences about the possible role of the seismic survey in a given stranding event. Only three of these events involved beaked whales. Whereas D'Amico
However, one of these stranding events, involving two Cuvier's beaked whales, was contemporaneous with and reasonably associated spatially with a 2002 seismic survey in the Gulf of California conducted by L-DEO, as was the case for the 2007 Gulf of Cadiz seismic survey discussed by Castellote and Llorens (also involving two Cuvier's beaked whales). Neither event was considered a “true atypical mass stranding” (according to Frantzis (1998)) as used in the analysis of Castellote and Llorens (2016). While we agree with the authors that this lack of evidence should not be considered conclusive, it is clear that there is very little evidence that seismic surveys should be considered as posing a significant risk of acute harm to beaked whales or other high-frequency cetaceans. We have considered the potential for the proposed surveys to result in marine mammal stranding and, based on the best available information, do not expect a stranding to occur.
Skalski
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality and, in some studies, fish auditory systems have been damaged by airgun noise (McCauley
A comprehensive review (Carroll
Available data suggest that cephalopods are capable of sensing the particle motion of sounds and detect low frequencies up to 1-1.5 kHz, depending on the species, and so are likely to detect airgun noise (Kaifu
With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton, McCauley
A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley
Notably, a more recently described study produced results inconsistent with those of McCauley
A review article concluded that, while laboratory results provide scientific evidence for high-intensity and low-frequency sound-induced physical trauma and other negative effects on some fish and invertebrates, the sound exposure scenarios in some cases are not realistic to those encountered by marine organisms during routine seismic operations (Carroll
In summary, impacts of the specified activity on marine mammal prey species will likely generally be limited to behavioral responses, the majority of prey species will be capable of moving out of the area during the survey, a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior for prey species is anticipated, and, overall, impacts to prey species will be minor and temporary. Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. Mortality from decompression injuries is possible in close proximity to a sound, but only limited data on mortality in response to airgun noise exposure are available (Hawkins
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). Although the signals emitted by seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be considered chronic in any given location.
Based on the information discussed herein, we conclude that impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of behavioral reactions and/or TTS, for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to noise from the use of seismic airguns. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will likely be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ, as well as the names of two hearing groups, have been recently updated (NMFS 2024) as reflected below in the Level A Harassment section.
L-DEO's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive seismic sources (
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include both updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group. The thresholds are provided in table 3. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical.
The proposed survey would entail the use of a cluster of two GI airguns with a total discharge volume of 90 in
For deep and intermediate water cases, the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive the harassment isopleths, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of 350-550 m, which may not intersect all the SPL isopleths at their widest point from the sea surface down to the assumed maximum relevant water depth (~2000 m) for marine mammals. At short ranges, where the direct arrivals dominate and the effects of seafloor interactions are minimal, the data at the deep sites are suitable for comparison with modeled levels at the depth of the calibration hydrophone. At longer ranges, the comparison with the model—constructed from the maximum SPL through the entire water column at varying distances from the airgun array—is the most relevant.
In deep and intermediate water depths at short ranges, sound levels for direct arrivals recorded by the calibration hydrophone and L-DEO model results for the same array tow depth are in good alignment (see figures 12 and 14 in Diebold
The proposed low-energy survey would acquire data with the 2 GI airgun array at a tow depth of 3 m. For deep water (>1,000 m), we use the deep-water radii obtained from the L-DEO model results down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m for the airgun array.
L-DEO's modeling methodology is described in greater detail in their application. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the proposed airgun configuration are shown in table 4.
Table 5 presents the modeled Level A harassment isopleths for each marine mammal hearing group based on L-DEO modeling incorporated in the companion user spreadsheet, for the low-energy surveys with the shortest shot interval (
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on modeling performed by L-DEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS user spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds contained in the NMFS Technical Guidance were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both SEL
The SEL
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of any species to be de minimis, even before the likely moderating effects of aversion and/or other compensatory behaviors (
The Level B harassment estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be within the area around the operating airgun array where received levels of sound ≥160 dB re 1 μPa RMS are predicted to occur. The estimated numbers are based on the densities (numbers per unit area) of marine mammals expected to occur in the area in the absence of seismic surveys. To the extent that marine mammals tend to move away from seismic sources before the sound level reaches the criterion level and tend not to approach an operating airgun array, these estimates likely overestimate the numbers actually exposed to the specified level of sound.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations.
L-DEO used habitat-based stratified marine mammal densities for summer (July-December) for the ETP when available (Barlow
The NMFS SWFSC also developed density estimates for species in the ETP that may be affected by their own fisheries research activities (NMFS 2015a). These estimates were derived from abundance estimates using ship-based surveys of marine mammals in the ETP, as reported by Gerrodette
For the sei whale, for which NMFS (2015) reported a density of zero, L-DEO used the spring density for Baja from U.S. Navy (2017). This was done because even though there is a modeled density of zero, we do expect there is some potential for sei whale to be in the project area during the proposed survey. No densities were available for Blainville's beaked whale, ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Deraniyagala's beaked whale, or pygmy beaked whale so density for
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level A or Level B harassment, radial distances from the airgun array to the predicted isopleth corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. Those radial distances were then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the harassment thresholds. The distance
L-DEO assumed that their estimates of marine mammal exposures above harassment thresholds equate to take and requested authorization of those takes. Those estimates in turn form the basis for our proposed take authorization numbers. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on operations.
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein referred to as visual protected species observers (PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be scanned visually includes primarily the shutdown zone (SZ), within which observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the acoustic source, a buffer zone, and to the extent possible depending on conditions, the surrounding waters. The buffer zone means an area beyond the SZ to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals that may enter the SZ. During pre-start clearance monitoring (
During survey operations (
PSOs shall establish and monitor the SZ and buffer zone. These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the edges of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). During use of the airgun array (
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period.
A SZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes (
The pre-start clearance zone is defined as the area that must be clear of marine mammals prior to beginning ramp-up of the airgun array and includes the SZ plus the buffer zone. Detections of marine mammals within the pre-start clearance zone would prevent airgun operations from beginning (
The 100-m SZ is intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding the injury criteria for all cetacean hearing groups, (based on the dual criteria of SEL
An extended SZ of 500 m must be implemented for all beaked whales, a large whale with a calf, and groups of six or more large whales. No buffer of this extended SZ is required, as NMFS concludes that this extended SZ is sufficiently protective to mitigate harassment to these groups.
Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as “soft start”) means the gradual and systematic increase of emitted sound levels from an airgun array. The intent of pre-start clearance observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no marine mammals are observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales, a large whale with a calf, and groups of six or more large whales) prior to the beginning of ramp-up. During the pre-start clearance period is the only time observations of marine mammals in the buffer zone would prevent operations (
• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the pre-start clearance zone (and extended SZ) for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance);
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-in;
• One of the PSOs conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the applicable shutdown or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the pre-start clearance zone (or extended SZ, for beaked whales, a large whale with a calf, and groups of six or more large whales) during the 30 minute pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (15 minutes for small odontocetes, and 30 minutes for all mysticetes and all other odontocetes, including sperm whales, beaked whales, and large delphinids, such as pilot whales);
• Ramp-up must begin by activating one GI airgun followed by the second, with each stage lasting no less than 5 minutes. The operator must provide information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed;
• PSOs must monitor the pre-start clearance zone and extended SZ during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon detection of a marine mammal within the applicable zone. Once ramp-up has begun, detections of marine mammals within the buffer zone do not require shutdown, but such observation shall be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown;
• Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate monitoring has occurred with no observations in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Airgun array activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances;
• If the airgun array is shut down for brief periods (
• Testing of the airgun array involving all elements requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-start clearance of 30 minutes.
The shutdown of an airgun array requires the immediate de-activation of all individual airgun elements of the array. Any PSO on duty will have the authority to call for shutdown of the airgun array if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable SZ. The operator must also establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the airgun array to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When the airgun array is active (
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the SZ. The animal would be considered to have cleared the SZ if it is visually observed to have departed the SZ (
The shutdown requirement is waived for specific genera of small dolphins if an individual is detected within the SZ. The small dolphin group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (
We include this small dolphin exception because shutdown requirements for these species under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small dolphins are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described above, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for high-frequency cetaceans (
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small dolphins commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding with no apparent effect observed (
Visual PSOs shall use best professional judgment in making the decision to call for a shutdown if there is uncertainty regarding identification (
L-DEO must implement shutdown if a marine mammal species for which take was not authorized or a species for which authorization was granted but the authorized takes have been met approaches the Level A or Level B harassment zones. L-DEO must also implement shutdown if any large whale (defined as a sperm whale or any mysticete species) with a calf (defined as an animal less than two-thirds the body size of an adult observed to be in close association with an adult) and/or
Vessel personnel should use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammal. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (separation distances stated below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 kn (18.5 kph) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from sperm whales and all other baleen whales. All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
As described above, PSO observations would take place during daytime airgun operations. During seismic survey operations, at least five visual PSOs would be based aboard the
• PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
• PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct visual observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of protected species and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards); and
• PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO training
• NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training course information packet that includes the name and qualifications (
• PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program;
• PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics; and
• The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written justification. Requests shall be granted or denied (with justification) by NMFS within 1 week of receipt of submitted information. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored protected species surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties.
• For data collection purposes, PSOs shall use standardized electronic data collection forms. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of animals to the airgun array and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the airgun array. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:
○ Vessel name, vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) of departures and returns to port with port name;
○ PSO names and affiliations, PSO ID (initials or other identifier);
○ Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and participants of PSO briefings;
○ Visual monitoring equipment used (description);
○ PSO location on vessel and height (meters) of observation location above water surface;
○ Watch status (description);
○ Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) and times (Greenwich Mean Time (GMC)/Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)) of survey on/off effort and times (GMC/UTC) corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
○ Vessel location (decimal degrees) at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;
○ Vessel heading (compass heading) and speed (knots) at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
○ Water depth (meters) (if obtainable from data collection software);
○ Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions changed significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
○ Factors that may have contributed to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions changed (description) (
○ Vessel/Survey activity information (and changes thereof) (description), such as airgun power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance (
• Upon visual observation of any marine mammals, the following information must be recorded:
○ Sighting ID (numeric);
○ Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
○ Location of PSO/observer (description);
○ Vessel activity at the time of the sighting (
○ PSO who sighted the animal/ID;
○ Time/date of sighting (GMT/UTC, MM/DD/YYYY);
○ Initial detection method (description);
○ Sighting cue (description);
○ Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
○ Water depth (meters);
○ Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
○ Speed (knots) of the vessel from which the observation was made;
○ Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel (description, compass heading);
○ Bearing to sighting (degrees);
○ Identification of the animal (
○ Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification) (1 = unsure/possible, 2 = probable, 3 = definite/sure, 9 = unknown/not recorded);
○ Estimated distance to the animal (meters) and method of estimating distance;
○ Estimated number of animals (high/low/best) (numeric);
○ Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition,
○ Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
○ Detailed behavior observations (
○ Animal's closest point of approach (meters) and/or closest distance from any element of the airgun array;
○ Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
○ Photos (Yes/No);
○ Photo Frame Numbers (List of numbers); and
○ Conditions at time of sighting (Visibility; Beaufort Sea State).
L-DEO shall submit a draft comprehensive report on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measure were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
• Environmental conditions (
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
• If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (
• To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 1, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of L-DEO's planned survey, even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the
In addition, the maximum expected Level B harassment zone around the survey vessel is 438 m. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding the vessel is relatively small compared to the overall distribution of animals in the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the short duration (seven survey days) and temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and marine mammal prey species are not expected to cause significant or long-term fitness consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
Additionally, the acoustic “footprint” of the proposed survey would be very small relative to the ranges of all marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the proposed survey area. The seismic array would be active 24 hours per day throughout the duration of the proposed survey. However, the very brief overall duration of the proposed survey (seven survey days) would further limit potential impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed activity.
Of the marine mammal species that are likely to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA: humpback whales (Central America DPS), fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales and Guadalupe fur seals. Additionally, the following species found in the action area that are not listed under the ESA but are depleted under the MMPA include: Pantropical spotted dolphin and spinner dolphin. The take numbers proposed for authorization for these species (table 6) are minimal relative to their modeled population sizes; therefore, we do not expect population-level impacts to any of these species. Moreover, the actual range of the populations extends past the area covered by the model, so modeled population sizes are likely smaller than their actual population size. Lastly, as previously described, meaningful impacts from the seismic survey are even less likely to occur for high-frequency cetaceans (
There are no rookeries, mating, or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area, and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the survey area.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• The proposed activity is temporary and of relatively short duration (24 days total with 7 days of planned survey activity);
• The anticipated impacts of the proposed activity on marine mammals would be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the ensonified area, which is relatively small (see tables 4 and 5);
• The availability of alternative areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity is readily abundant;
• The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the proposed survey would be temporary and spatially limited and impacts to marine mammal foraging would be minimal; and,
• The proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and severity of takes, to the extent practicable, by visually and/or acoustically detecting marine mammals within the established zones and implementing corresponding mitigation measures (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The number of takes NMFS proposes to authorize is below one-third of the modeled abundance for all relevant populations (specifically, take of individuals is less than 2 percent of the modeled abundance of each affected population, see table 6). This is conservative because the modeled abundance represents a population of the species and we assume all takes are of different individual animals, which is likely not the case. Some individuals may be encountered multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count them as separate individuals if they cannot be identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of humpback whales (Central America DPS), fin whales, sei whales, sperm whales and Guadalupe fur seals, which are listed under the ESA. The NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division has requested initiation of section 7 consultation with the OPR ESA Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey off Western Mexico in the ETP from November 18, 2025 through December 15, 2025, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine geophysical survey. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.