Agricultural Marketing Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC 9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, and Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of jammed elevators during takeoff. This AD requires revising the “Certificate Limitations” section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a procedure to confirm elevator surfaces are not jammed in the trailing edge down (TED) position. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 12, 2025.
• 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
Katherine Venegas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 562-627-5353; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes, and Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from The Boeing Company and an individual commenter. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that the FAA revise the Background paragraph and paragraph (e) of the proposed AD to state that unsafe condition could result in the inability of the aircraft to rotate at V
The FAA agrees with this request and has updated the Background paragraph and paragraph (e) of this AD to clarify that the unsafe condition could result in the inability of the airplane to rotate at rotation speed V
The individual commenter stated that in addition to the AFM revision, the FAA should mandate enhanced preflight inspection procedures and that a checklist for ground crews and pilots should include not only confirmation of elevator functionality, but also additional safeguards to detect anomalies caused by external environmental factors, such as high winds during parking. The commenter stated this multi-layered approach will improve the likelihood of identifying potential issues before takeoff.
The FAA agrees that a multi-layered approach is helpful and offers the following clarification. Preflight protocols have already been expanded and include enhanced preflight inspection procedures. The Boeing Flight Crew Operation Manuals (FCOMs), Operations Bulletins (OBs), and Airplane Maintenance Manuals (AMMs), have already been updated to include requirements to confirm prior to every flight that elevator surfaces are not jammed in the trailing edge down position, as well as procedures for making that confirmation. These updates were communicated to operators via a Boeing Service Letter. Therefore, it is not necessary to require these actions in this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.
The individual commenter stated pilots, ground crews, and maintenance personnel should receive mandatory training on the updated AFM procedures and the root cause of elevator jamming. The commenter stated clear communication of the risks and the steps to mitigate them will ensure consistent application across
Although the FAA agrees with the comment, no additional change to the AD is necessary. Section 91.9 prohibits any person from operating a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. FAA regulations also require operators to furnish pilots with any changes to the AFM (14 CFR 121.137) and pilots in command to be familiar with the AFM (14 CFR 91.505). Training is a secondary step that can be accomplished by the various operators through their maintenance and operational programs.
The individual commenter stated that the FAA should establish a robust monitoring system to evaluate compliance with the revised AFM procedures including requiring operators to submit regular reports on their implementation of the AD and any incidents involving elevator control anomalies. The commenter stated any incidents involving elevator control anomalies would provide valuable data to inform future safety measures.
The FAA agrees to clarify. The FAA has determined that reporting implementation of the AD is not required because the actions required by this AD adequately address the identified unsafe condition. Operators are already required to report incidents involving the flight control system to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as specified in 49 CFR 830.5 and the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, dated February 20, 2025. Additionally, 14 CFR 39.7 specifies that once an AD is issued, no person may operate a product to which the AD applies except in accordance with the requirements of that AD.
The individual commenter stated that Boeing's ongoing efforts to develop a design change to address elevator jamming must be closely monitored and that periodic updates should be shared publicly. The commenter stated that transparency will build confidence among passengers, operators, and other stakeholders while ensuring accountability for delivering a permanent solution.
The FAA agrees to clarify. As part of continued operational safety, the FAA is monitoring Boeing's developing design change. The design is proprietary to Boeing and cannot be shared to the public by the FAA. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.
The individual commenter supported the NPRM, but added that the FAA should work with Boeing to fast-track the development and certification of a design change. The commenter stated that while necessary, interim measures like the proposed AFM revision should not substitute for long-term corrective action and that a permanent fix will eliminate the risk of human error during preflight checks and enhance overall safety.
The FAA agrees to clarify. As part of continued operational safety, the FAA is monitoring Boeing's developing design change, including receiving periodic updates in a timely manner. As stated in the proposed rule, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition and considers this AD interim action, and if final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking. However, in the interim, the FAA has determined that the AFM revision required by this AD adequately addresses the unsafe condition. Therefore, fast-tracking the development and certification of a design change is not needed.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. Boeing is developing a design change to address the unsafe condition. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 104 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this 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.
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,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
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 June 12, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes.
(2) Model MD-88 airplanes.
(3) Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes.
(4) Model DC-9-21 airplanes.
(5) Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes.
(6) Model DC-9-41 airplanes.
(7) Model DC-9-51 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of jammed elevators during takeoff. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition, which if not addressed, could result in the inability of the aircraft to rotate at rotation speed V
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the “Certificate Limitations” section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to include the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the AFM.
(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 (i) 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) 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.
For more information about this AD, contact Katherine Venegas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 562-627-5353; email:
None.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes for the Fairbanks North Star Borough's 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
This finding is effective May 23, 2025.
Tess Bloom, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101;
Throughout this document, “we” and “our” refer to the EPA.
This document is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. The EPA Region 10 issued a letter on April 8, 2025, to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation stating that the PM
Transportation
The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The EPA has described its process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004) preamble starting at page 40038, and we used the information in these resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that an adequacy review is separate from the EPA's completeness review and should not be used to prejudge the EPA's ultimate approval action for the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
On January 8, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve the submitted Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan, including the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained therein. The EPA also initiated the adequacy process for the budgets included in that submission. We reviewed the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) to determine whether the motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for conformity purposes. See Enclosure 2 of EPA's April 8, 2025 letter for how the budgets meet these criteria.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Interim final determination.
In the Proposed Rules section of this
This interim final determination is effective May 8, 2025. However, comments will be accepted until June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0622, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-AQ-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6709, email address:
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
On November 7, 2023, the EPA took final action disapproving portions of the 2008 8-hour ozone serious attainment plan for the Denver Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) nonattainment area that were submitted by the State of Colorado on March 22, 2021.
We are making an interim final determination to defer application of the offset sanction for permitting of new or modified sources and highway sanctions under CAA section 179 that are associated with the November 7, 2023 disapproval. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(i), if the State has submitted a revised plan to correct the deficiencies identified in the disapproval actions, and the EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve the plan and issues an interim final determination that the revised plan corrects the identified deficiencies, application of the offset sanction for permitting of new and modified sources and highway sanctions shall be deferred. If not deferred, the offset sanction for permitting of new and modified sources would apply on June 7, 2025 for the November 7, 2023 contingency measures disapproval in the DMNFR nonattainment area. Additionally, highway sanctions would apply on December 7, 2025, for the disapproval.
Based on the proposed approval of portions of Colorado's June 26, 2023, May 23, 2024, and April 2, 2025 SIP submittals set forth in this document, Colorado has made revisions that adequately address the EPA's disapproval relating to contingency measures. This interim final determination is consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
The basis for allowing such an interim final action stems from the APA, which provides that the notice and opportunity for comment requirements do not apply when the Agency “for good cause finds” that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
The EPA is also invoking the “good cause” exception to the 30-day publication requirement of the APA. Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the
As explained above, the EPA is making this interim final determination based on our concurrent proposal to approve portions of Colorado's June 26, 2023, May 23, 2024, and April 2, 2025 SIP submittals that correct the deficiencies identified in our November 7, 2023 disapproval action with respect to the adequacy of contingency measures submitted by Colorado for the Serious nonattainment requirement in the DMNFR area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. If the EPA does not finalize the approval as proposed and instead disapproves or proposes to disapprove these SIP revisions, then the offset sanction for permitting of new and modified sources under CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the affected area on the later of: (1) the date the EPA issues such a proposed or final disapproval; or (2) June 7, 2025 (
This action defers Federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. The rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). The EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons thereof, and established an effective date of May 8, 2025.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Tehama
This rule is effective June 9, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0526. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Manny Aquitania, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3977; email:
Throughout this document, “we” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 26, 2024 (89 FR 20915), the EPA proposed to approve the rule listed in Table 1 into the California SIP.
For areas designated
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Rule 2:3C is intended to address the CAA's statutory and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule closed on April 25, 2024. During this period, the EPA received two comments. The first commenter expressed concerns about the environmental effects of cannabis cultivation, asserting that commercial cannabis cultivation can produce volatile organic compounds which may lead to ozone pollution and that cannabis is a water-hungry crop. The second commenter questioned why the budget does not provide for ozone monitoring that is more representative of the jurisdiction, noting the high elevation location of the monitor at the Tuscan Buttes, over 1,800 feet above mean sea level, with meteorological conditions likely different than in the main part of Tehama County.
After reviewing each comment, the EPA has determined that these comments fail to raise issues germane to the EPA's proposed approval of Rule 2:3C into the California SIP, which is based specifically upon the Clean Air Act's requirements for state NNSR programs. Therefore, we have determined that these comments do not necessitate a response, and the EPA will not provide specific responses to the comments in this notice.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of Rule 2:3C as described in our proposed action. We continue to find that Rule 2:3C satisfies the relevant requirements for a CAA NNSR program for ozone,
This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP. In conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility program for sources subject to the NNSR program, this action also revises the scope of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.281 for California so that this FIP no longer applies to sources located in the TCAPCD nonattainment area that is subject to the District's visibility program.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference Rule 2:3C, “New and Modified Major Sources in the Tuscan Buttes Nonattainment Areas,” adopted on February 28, 2023, as described in Section I of this preamble, which
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(610) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) Tehama County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(
(d) * * *
(16) Tehama County Air Pollution Control District.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on November 4, 2024. The SIP revisions consist of revised Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules implementing the Nitrogen Oxide (NO
This direct final rule will be effective July 7, 2025, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 9, 2025. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2024-0528 at
Neena Nallaballi, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-1770,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Ohio EPA is subject to requirements in Ohio Revised Code 106.03 and 106.031 to review each of its regulations every five years to assess whether any updates to the regulations are warranted and for other purposes. Accordingly, Ohio EPA reviewed its regulations in OAC Chapter 3745-14, entitled “Nitrogen Oxides—Reasonably Available Control Technology”.
As a result of its review, Ohio EPA concluded that rule revisions were needed to modify the wording of selected text to correct typos and reflect new formatting guidelines, and to update publication and referenced material titles, effective dates, addresses, and websites. Ohio EPA adopted these various minor revisions and updated their rules on August 15, 2024, and then requested that EPA approve these revisions into the Ohio SIP in a submittal dated November 4, 2024.
Ohio EPA has requested that EPA approve revisions to portions of Chapter 3745-14 of the OAC. These rules include 3745-14-01 (Definitions and General Provisions) and 3745-14-08 (Monitoring and Reporting). The revisions are described in detail below. EPA has determined that these revisions are approvable since they are primarily administrative in nature and do not relax SIP requirements.
This rule contains the applicable definitions and establishes the provisions and requirements to implement a NO
This rule contains compliance monitoring and reporting requirements for the NO
EPA is approving the November 4, 2024, submission by Ohio EPA as a revision to the Ohio SIP. Specifically, EPA is approving updates to OAC Chapter 3745-14.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Ohio Regulations described in section II of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 7, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) is proposing to amend its regulation regarding the method for correcting errors involving Lifecycle Funds that no longer exist. Specifically, it is reverting to the use of a constructed share price to calculate breakage and the value of negative adjustments for errors involving Lifecycle Funds that no longer exist as of June 1, 2022.
Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
You may submit comments using one of the following methods:
•
•
Comments will be made available to the public online at
The FRTIB administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or advantaged arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). The provisions of FERSA that govern the TSP are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79.
The TSP offers five core funds (the G, F, C, S, and I Funds). In addition, the TSP offers eleven Lifecycle Funds, which consist of a diversified mix of the five individual funds (G, F, C, S, and I). The Lifecycle Funds are designed to align with the investing participant's target retirement date. Most of the Lifecycle Funds are labeled with a year (L 2025, L 2030, L 2035, L 2040.,
Every quarter (three months), the asset allocations of all the Lifecycle Funds except the L Income Fund are automatically adjusted, gradually shifting them from higher risk and reward to lower risk and reward as they get closer to their target dates. In the year of a Lifecycle Fund's target date, it goes out of existence and any money in it becomes part of the L Income Fund. For example, this year, the L 2025 Fund will be rolled into the L Income Fund. A Lifecycle Fund that no longer exists is referred to as a “retired” Lifecycle Fund.
Once an L Fund is retired, TSP participants are no longer able to invest their contributions in that fund. However, the FRTIB is sometimes required to calculate lost earnings (
Section 1605.2 contains a formula for calculating breakage, and section 1605.12 contains a formula for calculating the value of negative adjustments. The current share price of the relevant investment fund is one of variables in each of these formulas. Because a retired Lifecycle Fund no longer exists, there is no current share price. In the past, the FRTIB used a constructed share price to calculate breakage and the value of negative adjustments for errors involving retired Lifecycle Funds.
The first TSP Lifecycle Fund to ever be retired was the L 2010 Fund. On October 14, 2010, the FRTIB published a proposed rule explaining the FRTIB's anticipated use of a constructed share price to calculate breakage and the value of negative adjustments for errors involving retired Lifecycle Funds. (75 FR 63106). Under that proposed rule, the constructed share price for a retired Lifecycle Fund would be determined as follows: The retired Lifecycle Fund's share price on the date it was retired, multiplied by the current L Income Fund share price, divided by the L Income Fund shared price on the date the Lifecycle fund was retired. The FRTIB received no public comments. On December 1, 2010, the FRTIB published the proposed rule as final without modification. (75 FR 74607).
In November 2020, the FRTIB awarded a contract to a new service provider (called a recordkeeper) that maintains and operates the technology platforms necessary to process TSP transactions. The transition from the prior TSP recordkeeper to the new TSP recordkeeper was an enormous technological project that occurred over the course of 18 months. During that transition period, the new TSP recordkeeper informed the FRTIB that the new TSP recordkeeper was unable to calculate a constructed share price for retired Lifecycle Funds. Accordingly, the FRTIB amended its regulations to provide that the share price of the L Income Fund would be used instead. (87 FR 31670).
The new TSP recordkeeper has since informed the FRTIB that the new TSP
This proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees and members of the uniformed services who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the FRTIB.
This proposed regulation does not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.
Employee benefit plans, Government employees, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB proposes to amend 5 CFR part 1605 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432a, 8432d, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1). Subpart B also issued under section 1043(b) of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 and § 7202(m)(2) of Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.
(b) * * *
(3) Determine the dollar value on the posting date of the number of shares the participant would have received had the contributions or loan payments been made on time. If the contribution or loan payments would have been invested in a Lifecycle Fund that retired prior to June 1, 2022, then the share price of the L Income Fund will be used; but if the Lifecycle Fund retired on or after June 1, 2022, then a constructed share price for the retired Lifecycle Fund will be used. The constructed share price shall equal the final posted share price of the retired Lifecycle Fund, multiplied by the current L Income Fund share price, divided by the L Income Fund share price on date of the final posted share price of the retired Lifecycle Fund. The dollar value shall be the number of shares the participant would have received had the contributions or loan payments been made on time multiplied by the relevant share price modifier, as determined by the posting date.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Multiply the price per share on the date the adjustment is posted by the number of shares calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. If the contribution was erroneously contributed to a Lifecycle Fund that is retired on the date the adjustment is posted and the Lifecycle Fund retired prior to June 1, 2022, then the share price of the L Income Fund will be used; or if the Lifecycle Fund retired on or after June 1, 2022, then a constructed share price for the retired Lifecycle Fund will be used. The constructed share price shall equal the final posted share price of the retired Lifecycle Fund, multiplied by the current L Income Fund share price, divided by the L Income Fund share price on date of the final posted share price of the retired Lifecycle Fund.
Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meetings for proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces public meetings to solicit input on the modernization of pilot school regulations.
The FAA will hold a hybrid of virtual and in-person public meetings on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, and Wednesday, June 11, 2025, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Eastern Time. The FAA must receive requests to attend the hybrid in-person meeting no later than May 27, 2025.
The in-person meetings will be held at Bridgewater State University, Moakley Auditorium, 100 Burrill Ave., Bridgewater, MA 02324, and virtually on Zoom. See website for registration information link for both virtual and in-person meetings:
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2024-2531 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For questions concerning this action, contact Lyndsay Carlson with the Part 141 Modernization Initiative Team, Office of Safety Standards, General Aviation and Commercial Division, Training and Certification Group (AFS-810): Email:
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 141 (Pilot Schools) prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot school air agency certificates, provisional pilot school air agency certificates, and associated ratings, and the general operating rules applicable to a holder of a certificate or rating issued under part 141. Through a part 141 pilot school, a student may obtain equivalent levels of aeronautical experience in fewer hours than required by 14 CFR part 61 (Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors). Part 141 schools are required to have FAA certification and supplementary oversight. Specifically, part 141 includes curricula standards for training and procedures to ensure a training course used by a school is adequate, appropriate, and administered by qualified personnel.
The process of licensing or certification of pilot schools in the United States is approaching 100 years of existence. Although the FAA has revised certain regulatory requirements pertaining to pilot schools during this time, part 141 still has many foundational ties to Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 50, which was implemented in the 1940s. Regulations for pilot schools are typically promulgated to improve safety, reduce aircraft accidents, and embrace changes such as advances in technology and the need for data collection and analysis. Modernizing part 141 is essential for addressing challenges pertaining to certification, certification management, examining authority, and evolving technology and learning methods. The objective of modernizing part 141 is to increase safety and create a foundation for a more structured and robust training environment to aid in the reduction of general aviation fatal accidents.
Therefore, part 141 must be analyzed to determine how it can evolve with the changing aviation industry. Over the course of the project, the FAA is seeking engagement from the flight training industry through participation in public meetings. Collaboration is encouraged to stimulate the innovation of a modern part 141 that will serve the needs of current and future pilot schools, as well as provide a robust and safe training environment that instills the necessary knowledge, skills, critical thinking, and aeronautical decision making in its pilots to create a safer national airspace system.
Information concerning the public meetings, including topics and meeting times will be posted at the following website:
Each meeting will be open to the public for virtual or in-person attendance on a first-come, first-served basis, as there is limited space. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
DOT is committed to providing equal access to these meetings for all participants. If you require an alternative version of files provided or alternative accommodations, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the Part 141 Modernization Initiative Team, at
The FAA encourages the public to submit comments to
The submission of public comments is encouraged but not required for meeting participation. The FAA will consider public feedback to determine the need for future considerations to the CFR. The FAA will review comments that are post-marked, or submitted electronically, on or before the comment closing date of June 3, 2025. Comments made after the closing date may be reviewed as time and resources permit.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by New York that certify that the State has satisfied the requirements for an emission statement program for both the Serious and Moderate classifications of the 2008 and 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), respectively. These actions are being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Written comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2025-0040 at
Fausto Taveras, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number: (212) 637-3378, email address:
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On January 29, 2021, New York submitted a SIP revision for purposes of addressing ozone elements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 8-hour NAAQS for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area (also referred to as the New York Metro Area or NYMA). Within this comprehensive SIP, the State included its certification that it has satisfied the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2015 ozone Moderate classification, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 182(b), for the NYMA nonattainment area.
In addition, New York also submitted a comprehensive SIP revision on November 29, 2021. Within that submittal, New York included its certification that the State has satisfied the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2008 ozone Serious classification, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and 182(c), for the NYMA nonattainment area. The EPA addressed the remaining ozone elements, outlined in New York's comprehensive January 29, 2021, and November 29, 2021, SIP revisions, in a separate rulemaking. 88 FR 77208 (November 9, 2023). Table 1 presents the Ozone SIP elements addressed in New York's comprehensive January 29, 2021, and November 29, 2021, SIP submissions along with the respective ozone NAAQS classification and nonattainment areas.
In 2008, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts per million (ppm), or 75 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over an 8-hour time frame. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially for children and adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease like asthma.
On May 21, 2012, the EPA published its final attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 77 FR 30088. This action became effective on July 20, 2012. Within that action, the EPA designated two 8-hour ozone marginal
Regarding the 2015 ozone NAAQS, on June 4, 2018, the EPA published a final rule establishing designations and classifications for this standard for most areas of the country, including New York.
Additionally, on December 6, 2018, the EPA published a final rule outlining requirements for States to follow for implementing their 2015 ozone NAAQS (2015 Ozone Implementation Rule). 83 FR 62998. The December 6, 2018, rule provides that air agencies must either submit the emission statement regulation required by CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) or provide a written statement to the EPA as a SIP revision for approval certifying a previously approved regulation.
The air quality planning and SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment and transport areas are established in subparts 1 and 2 of part D of title I of the Act, as amended in 1990. The EPA published a “General Preamble” and “Appendices to the General Preamble,” which describe how the EPA intends to review SIPs submitted under title I of the Act. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The EPA has also issued a draft guidance document, entitled “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program” (Emission Statement Guidance), dated July 1992, which describes the minimum requirements for approvable emission statement programs.
Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act requires that States, which contain all or part of any non-attainment area, submit SIP revisions to the EPA by November 15, 1992. The provision further requires that owners/operators of stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act allows States to waive, with the EPA's approval, the requirement for an emission statement for classes or categories of sources located in nonattainment areas, which emit less than 25 tons per year (tpy) of the actual plantwide VOC or NO
The required Emission Statement Program defines how air agencies obtain emissions data directly from certain
As discussed in section I., New York's January 29, 2021, and November 29, 2021, comprehensive SIP submissions included emission statement certifications for the Moderate and Serious classifications of the New York portion of the NYMA for the 2015 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS, respectively.
In New York's January 2021 SIP submittal, the State certified that its state-wide federally approved regulation at title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulation (NYCRR) subpart 202-2, “Emission Statements,” satisfies the federal requirement for an emission statement program for the 2015 70 ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS (6 NYCRR subpart 202-2). The EPA most recently approved New York's state-wide certification on May 13, 2020, for satisfying the requirement of an emission statement program for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Moderate classification. 85 FR 28490.
The EPA stated in the 2015 ozone implementation rule that if an area has a previously approved emission statement rule enforced for (1) the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (2) the 1997 ozone NAAQS; or (3) the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, then such a rule should be sufficient for the purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.83 FR 62998 (December 06, 2018).
Under 6 NYCRR subpart 202-2, “Emission Statements,” owners or operators of a major facility within the State, including stationary sources of VOCs or NO
New York certifies that the emission statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) is fully addressed through 6 NYCRR subpart 202-2, which is applicable state-wide.
In the November 29, 2021, SIP submittal, New York also certifies that the same state-wide federally approved regulation at 6 NYCRR subpart 202-2, “Emission Statements,” continues to satisfy the CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and section 182(c) requirements for an emission statement program for the Serious classification of the 2008 75 ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Similarly, the EPA stated in the 2008 ozone implementation rule that if an area has a previously approved emission statement rule enforced for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). As described earlier in this section, on May 13, 2020, the EPA approved New York's state-wide certifications, for addressing the emission statement requirement as it relates to the NYMA's 2008 75ppb 8-hour ozone NAAQS Moderate classification. 85 FR 28490. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to approve New York's emission statement certification that the previously approved SIP element fully meets the CAA requirements for the Serious classification of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the New York portion of the NYMA nonattainment area.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to approve the certifications included in New York State's January 29, 2021, and November 29, 2021, comprehensive SIP revisions. Within the January 29, 2021, comprehensive SIP revision, New York certified that the State has satisfied the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2015 ozone Moderate classification, pursuant to CAA sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 182(b), for the NYMA nonattainment area. Additionally, New York's November 29, 2021, comprehensive SIP revision provided certification that the State's existing emission statement regulation addresses the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2008 ozone Serious classification, pursuant to CAA sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 182(c), for the NYMA nonattainment area. The EPA has determined that New York's federally approved emission statement regulation, 6 NYCRR subpart 202-2, “Emission Statements,” continues to properly implement the emissions statement requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 182(c) consistent with 40 CFR 51.1115 and 40 CFR 51.1315.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not proposing to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Louisiana's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted to EPA on April 2, 2025, for the Evangeline Parish 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0173, at
Andrew Lee, EPA Region 6 Office, Ozone and Infrastructure Section, 214-665-6750,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary SO
Section 191 of the CAA directs Louisiana to submit a SIP for the Evangeline Parish area within 18 months of the effective date of the designation,
On December 16, 2024, the EPA published the finding that the Evangeline Parish area failed to attain the 2010 SO
On April 2, 2025, Louisiana submitted the Evangeline Parish nonattainment SIP revision to the EPA. The SIP revision includes a newly established Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) containing the enforceable control strategy which is incorporated into the attainment demonstration (AD) for Evangeline Parish. This SIP revision contemplated in this proposed approval fulfills the SIP submittal requirement imposed by both CAA sections 191(a) and 179(d).
SO
Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement under the Act.
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires a SIP to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet. Generally, SO
In all cases, the emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to determine compliance. As discussed in the General Preamble, the emission limits and control measures should be quantifiable (
40 CFR 51.112(a)(1) states that all applications of air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models specified in the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Modeling Guideline). Appendix A to the
The Modeling Guideline is periodically updated with the latest recommended techniques and guidance for usage, with the applicable requirements being those in effect at the time the modeling was completed. The version of the Modeling Guideline in effect at the time Louisiana developed its SIP was adopted in a
Based on and consistent with the Modeling Guideline's requirements, EPA has issued supplemental guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 SO
As stated previously, ADs for the 2010 SO
This section discusses the EPA's review and analysis of the modeled attainment plan, including model selection and general model inputs, meteorological data, emissions data, receptor grid, emissions limits, and background concentrations. A complete, detailed discussion of the modeling requirements and our analysis is presented in the technical support document (TSD) contained in the public docket for this proposed action.
Louisiana's AD modeling conducted by Trinity Consultants, Inc. (TCI), on behalf of Cabot, used EPA's regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD, to determine the SO
The most significant source, and only point source, addressed in the modeling for the area is Cabot. This facility is the principal cause of the modeled violations in the area. At the location of highest concentrations modeled in the area, the Cabot facility contributed more than 99% in total to the modeled violations. The modeling techniques used for this source are discussed later in this section.
The selection of terrain data corresponds to the geographic area represented by the Evangeline Parish nonattainment area, as well as the locations of buildings and structures nearby the source that influence concentrations in the area. TCI generated the necessary terrain inputs for AERMAP using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED). Elevations from the NED data were determined for all sources and structures, and both elevations and representative hill heights were determined for receptors.
A detailed site characterization of the Cabot facility provided dimensional and locational data for structures and stacks necessary for addressing building-induced plume downwash. TCI used the EPA's Building Profile Input Program with PRIME algorithm (BPIPPRM, dated 04274) to generate direction-specific building parameters for modeling building wake effects through the assistance of TCI's
The Cabot facility has four main production units, VP-1 through VP-4 (Units 1 through 4). During normal operations, all four units feed into the MAIN stack which will be installed with a wet gas scrubber pollution control device. When the MAIN stack and emission controls are undergoing scheduled maintenance, the Cabot facility will rely on its existing unit specific stacks that are monitored with the existing Predictive Emissions Monitoring System (PEMS). VP-3 (Unit 3) has its own flare stack (SFLR3) and dryer stack (SDRY3). VP-4 (Unit 4) has its own flare stack (SFLR4) whereas VP-1 and VP-2 uses a combined flare (SFLR12). VP-1, VP-2, and VP-4 use a combined dryer stack (SDRY124).
TCI used site specific building and stack data to model all stacks in the Cabot facility at the lesser of actual stack height or Good Engineering Practice
In accordance with the Modeling Guideline and EPA's guidance cited previously, meteorological data must be selected from a nearby and representative source and adequately processed for use in AERMOD. The State's modeling relied on the most recent five years (2016-2021)
The Lake Charles station meets the EPA's criteria as being nearby and representative. The EPA also finds that TCI adequately processed the upper air and surface air data from the Lake Charles station in accordance with the Modeling Guideline and the EPA's AERMOD Implementation Guide
The primary source contributing to modeled violations in the nonattainment area is the Cabot facility. This SIP revision includes an emission inventory for SO
The plant has four carbon black production units: VP-1 through VP-4. VP-3 has its own flare stack (SFLR3) and dryer stack (SDRY3). VP-4 has its own flare stack (SFLR4) whereas VP-1 and VP-2 have a combined flare stack (SFLR12). VP-1, VP-2, and VP-4 have a combined dryer stack (SDRY124). As discussed elsewhere, during normal operations, emissions from VP-1 through VP-4 will be routed through emission controls and the MAIN stack. Hence, there are six major emissions points of SO
The SIP's AD modeling covers operating scenarios with emissions through the wet gas scrubber (WGS) and MAIN stack as well as a number of operating scenarios for maintenance periods with emissions through the flare and dryer stacks. This approach enabled the determination of emission rates for each operating scenario that were shown through the modeling to be consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's review and analysis of the SIP revision's emissions limits and operating parameters for the facility can be found in section II, E.
Additional details and evaluation of the emissions data utilized in the AD are provided in our accompanying TSD and TCI's Modeling Report.
Within AERMOD, air quality concentration results are calculated at discrete locations identified by the user; these locations are called receptors. TCI's modeling domain for this demonstration consisted of four nested receptor grids which increase in spacing as the receptors increase in distance from Cabot. The inner most grid consists of a circle approximately centered upon the location of Cabot's new MAIN stack, extending outward to one kilometer from the facility center filled with a gridded receptor array at 25-meter intervals. This 25-meter spaced grid also includes receptors on the property fence line, on the public road that bisects the plant, and the adjacent railway. The second grid consists of 100-meter spaced receptors filling the space between 1-kilometer and 2-kilometer circles. The third grid from the center extends from 2 to 5 km with receptors spaced 200 meters apart. The outermost rectangular grid (also trimmed to the shape of a circle) extends from 5 kilometers from the Cabot facility to 10 kilometers with receptors placed every 500 meters. Receptors were excluded within the boundary of the Cabot facility which is considered non-ambient air relative to its own emissions. The modeling domain and receptor network are sufficient to identify maximum impacts from the modeled sources, and detect significant concentration gradients, and are adequate for demonstrating attainment in the nonattainment area and the surrounding area.
An important aspect of a SIP is that the emission limits providing for attainment be quantifiable, fully enforceable, replicable, and accountable.
In 2013, EPA and Louisiana entered into consent decrees with select carbon black facilities, including Cabot, in Louisiana for violations of the Prevention of Significant Deteriorations provision of the CAA.
In situations where a flare becomes inoperable, the facility must cease feeding the carbon black feedstock to the associated carbon black production unit. Under category 1, there are five different operating scenarios allowed depending on the number of units operating, operating capacity and the feedstock selected. During Category 1 operations, when units VP-1 through VP-4 are transitioning from cold start to steady state operations, startup of the emission units shall be conducted in accordance with the sequence of operations in Table 1 of this document. No two units will simultaneously undergo startup. Table 2 provides the different operating scenarios that are allowed during Category 1 planned outage and turnaround periods along with the associated operating units and maximum sulfur feedstock allowed during each such scenario. Table 3 provides the maximum emission limit of each stack associated with each operating scenario in Category 1. Table 3 establishes emission rates for the next-to-last-step (worst case hours) and separate emission rates when all emission units are steady state. The next-to-last-step emission rates are higher due to the transitional state of the last unit in startup mode, where burners may be sputtering or not staying lit in transitional state but are firing consistently and uniformly in steady state.
Cabot may operate under any of these scenarios during any time of the year with the restriction that Cabot is only allowed to operate the flares and dryer stacks under Category 1 for up to 168 hours for yearly planned outages and up to 744 hours during every fifth year for planned turnaround. Cabot shall utilize the WGS and MAIN stack for all other hours.
For Category 1 operations, emissions from the dryer stacks and flares will be calculated via a Predictive Emission Monitoring System (PEMS). To make the calculations, the system shall record: the weight percent of sulfur in feedstock oil to all reactors, the total pounds of feedstock oil processed in the reactors, the total pounds of sulfur entering all reactors (feedstock oil sulfur content times amount processed), and the amount of SO
The owner or operator of the facility must maintain records for a minimum of five years and must demonstrate compliance with all applicable recordkeeping requirements. The owner or operator must maintain records of the CEMS data for the exhaust gas sulfur content, temperature, and velocity from the scrubber stack. The owner or operator must maintain records of the PEMS data for the feed rate monitoring and the sulfur content of the carbon black oil feed blend. Additionally, records documenting any hourly period that exceeds the emission limits or standards mandated by the Administrative Order on Consent must be maintained. Finally, copies of each performance test and relative accuracy audit and all associated records must be maintained.
As required in LDEQ's SIP submittal, all exceedances of the applicable emission limits or failure to meet other requirements must be reported to LDEQ no later than April 30 of the subsequent year after violation. The report must include an explanation of the exceedance or failure; if the violation was due to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) event; and a description of any action taken to rectify the issue.
The SIP revision requires the Cabot facility to complete construction and commissioning of the WGS and CEMS on the MAIN stack and comply with all requirements of the AOC by July 30, 2026.
If the EPA finalizes this proposed action, the emission limits and source configuration requirements, as well as the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent will become federally enforceable as a source-specific revision to the Louisiana SIP.
To satisfy the EPA modeling requirements, the SIP's AD must also incorporate background concentrations into its modeling. The AD estimates the combined impacts of facility-specific emission rates and monitored background concentrations. Regional sources not explicitly modeled in AERMOD, but that contribute to ambient SO
Once a suitable monitor is selected, Appendix W prescribes tiered approaches for incorporating that data as background concentration. LDEQ selected the “Tier 2” approach recommended by the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour SO
The attainment plan establishes new emissions limits for the Cabot facility needed to attain the 1-hour SO
The EPA concludes that LDEQ's modeling is a suitable demonstration. Based on our review of the SIP, EPA has determined that the SIP submission satisfies the applicable CAA requirements and, if approved, would provide for attainment of the SO
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. A nonattainment SIP must include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO
The State of Louisiana compiled a statewide EI in accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, LAC 33:III.918 and 919 (Recordkeeping and Annual Reporting and Emissions Inventory). LDEQ chose the year 2018 as the base year for its analyses as the most complete and representative record of annual SO
A summary of the State's submitted emissions inventory is provided in the following table:
The EPA agrees that the State's emissions inventories for point, nonpoint, and mobile sources are appropriate because they have been accumulated and reported in accordance with established methods and criteria. The EPA proposes that the emissions inventory is representative and satisfies the EI requirement.
CAA section 172(c)(1) requires states to adopt and submit all RACM, including RACT, as needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain enforceable emission limits and control measures necessary to provide for timely attainment of the standard. The plan relies on ambient SO
The control strategy at the Cabot facility incorporates post-combustion flue gas desulfurization via controls for the MAIN stack by requiring the installation of a wet gas scrubber (WGS). Furthermore, the flares and dryer stacks (SDRY3, SDRY124, SFLR12, SFLR 3, and SFLR4) shall only be operated in periods of planned outage of the WGS or periods of turnaround while maintenance is being undertaken on the WGS (MAIN stack), while maintaining compliance with specific parameters set forth in the SIP.
The final emission limitations as included in the Administrative Order on Consent are provided earlier in this document in section II.E.,
The EPA has approved both Louisiana's NNSR and Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) banking programs. (LAC 33:111.504 was approved on September 30, 2002;
Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [part D] or may reasonably be required by the [EPA] for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable attainment date.” For purposes of SO
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires the Evangeline Parish Attainment Plan SIP provide for reasonable further progress towards attainment. EPA has determined that once control requirements and emissions limits have been implemented, these measures will provide for attainment in the area. Cabot entered into an AOC that requires compliance by July 30, 2026, and if finalized as a SIP revision, will become federally enforceable. Louisiana provides in the SIP a discussion of the current status of implementation and anticipated construction schedule to support the compliance date. Therefore, Louisiana concluded that its SIP submittal provides for RFP in accordance with EPA's SO
As discussed in our 2014 SO
Louisiana's plan satisfies the contingency measure requirement with this kind of comprehensive enforcement program and follow-up for compliance. The EPA proposes to approve Louisiana's plan for meeting the contingency measure requirement in this manner.
Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the CAA, conformity requires that actions by Federal agencies do not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to Federal actions, other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action takes place in a nonattainment area or maintenance area (
Transportation conformity determinations are not required in SO
EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's April 2, 2025, submission as a SIP revision for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO
The SO
In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Louisiana source-specific requirements as described in section IV. of this document, Proposed Action. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve state implementation plan (SIP) submittals under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that address contingency measures requirements for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the Denver Metro/North Front Range (DMNFR) ozone nonattainment area. The requirements at issue relate to the area's previous Serious nonattainment classification. The EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the applicable CAA requirements for Serious area contingency measures and is proposing approval of the contingency measures SIP submittals, except that we are not taking action on one of the two identified contingency measures included in the submittals. In addition, the EPA is proposing to approve regulatory revisions that Colorado adopted to implement the submitted motor vehicle coating contingency measure. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2024-0622 to the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-AQ-R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6709, email address:
In this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The EPA is proposing to approve Colorado SIP revisions for three submittals related to the Serious area contingency measures requirement for the DMNFR area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These submittals also address certain organizational revisions affecting the submitted regulations, including the relocation of existing portions of Colorado's Regulation Number 7 (“Reg. 7”) into new standalone regulations and renumbering of existing regulatory provisions. On June 26, 2023, Colorado submitted SIP revisions to address certain Moderate and Severe nonattainment requirements for the 2015 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively, which included revisions to Reg. 7.
On May 23, 2024, Colorado submitted SIP revisions to the existing approved Reg. 7 to separate out certain components of Reg. 7 and create Regulation Number 24 (“Reg. 24”), Regulation Number 25 (“Reg. 25”), and Regulation Number 26 (“Reg. 26”) as new standalone regulations.
More specifically, the EPA is also proposing to approve the June 26, 2023 revisions to Reg. 7, Part A that define new and existing sources and the applicability of requirements based on the nonattainment area in which they are located; revisions to Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P. regarding motor vehicle coating requirements that include provisions for those requirements to function as a contingency measure; and revisions to Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A. that update reference dates to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In addition, the EPA is proposing to approve the May 23, 2024 revisions reorganizing Reg. 7, parts A and C into Reg. 25, parts A and B as well as the April 2, 2025 revisions to Reg. 25, parts A and B concerning motor vehicle coating provisions. The remaining revisions from the June 26, 2023, May 23, 2024 and April 2, 2025 submittals not described above, and not identified in table 3 of this preamble, will be addressed by the EPA in future rulemakings.
If the EPA finalizes this rulemaking as proposed, Colorado will have corrected the deficiency identified in the EPA's November 7, 2023 disapproval with respect to the Serious area contingency measures requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Consistent with
The basis for our proposed action is discussed in more detail below. Technical information that the EPA is relying on is contained in the docket, available at
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (based on the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years).
Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ambient ozone levels, as determined using the area's design value. The design value is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration at a monitoring site.
Although the DMNFR area is currently classified as Severe nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the present action pertains only to the contingency measures requirement for the prior Serious nonattainment classification. Among the requirements for Serious ozone nonattainment area plans, states must submit SIP provisions that constitute contingency measures that would go into effect and result in additional emission reductions in the event that the EPA determines the area fails to attain the applicable standard by the attainment date (in this case, the 2008 ozone NAAQS), make Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) toward attainment, or meet any applicable RFP milestone. As described above, the EPA disapproved a Colorado SIP submittal intended to meet the Serious area contingency measures requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on November 7, 2023. The EPA has previously taken action to approve or conditionally approve SIP submittals to address the State's other Serious ozone nonattainment area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under CAA section 172(c)(9), states are required to submit an attainment plan SIP that includes contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. For ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious or above, CAA section 182(c)(9) further specifies that states must include contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone. An EPA determination that a state failed to meet an RFP milestone or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date is referred to as a “triggering event” because it triggers the requirement to implement the contingency measures specified in the SIP.
The information provided below is explained in greater detail in EPA's “Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter”
To satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), contingency measures should be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented upon a triggering event.
The EPA recommends that contingency measures achieve emissions reductions equivalent to one year's worth of “progress.”
As to the time within which emission reductions from contingency measures should occur, the EPA recommends that emission reductions should occur within one year of the triggering event or up to two years of the triggering event if there are insufficient contingency measures available to achieve the recommended amount of emission reductions within one year.
As explained previously, if after an adequate evaluation a state is unable to identify contingency measures that would provide emission reductions achieving approximately one year's worth of progress, then the EPA recommends that the state provide an infeasibility justification for a lesser amount, which the state should support with an infeasibility justification. This infeasibility justification should explain and document the state's evaluation of existing and potential control measures relevant to the appropriate source categories and pollutants in the nonattainment area, and the state's conclusions regarding whether such measures are feasible as contingency measures in the area.
The statutory scheme contemplates that a state will have approved contingency measures in place in the SIP and ready to be implemented in the event of a triggering event
On June 26, 2023, Colorado submitted SIP submittals related to Moderate and Severe nonattainment plan requirements for the 2015 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, respectively, which included revisions to Reg. 7 establishing a motor vehicle coating contingency measure for the DMNFR nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On June 8, 2024, before the EPA proposed action on this submitted contingency measure and before the Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 NAAQS, Colorado requested voluntary reclassification from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for this area. On July 24, 2024, the EPA granted the voluntary reclassification request.
On May 23, 2024, Colorado submitted revisions to Reg. 7 to separate out certain components of Reg. 7 to create Reg. 24, Reg. 25, and Reg. 26 as new standalone regulations. On April 2, 2025, Colorado submitted the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan as a revision to the Colorado SIP.
In the June 26, 2023 submittal, among other revisions, Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P. was added and Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A.3.a. was updated to reflect the applicable EPA reference method used to demonstrate compliance, as revised in the CFR on March 23, 2021.
Distinct from the aforementioned motor vehicle coating requirements, the June 26, 2023 submittal included revisions to the applicability and general provisions found in Reg. 7, Part A that are relevant to requirements across Reg. 7. These revisions are not specific to the contingency measures requirement that the EPA is addressing in this rulemaking, but the EPA is proposing approval of these revisions because the revised sections are included in the reorganization of Reg. 7 parts A and C into Reg. 25, parts A and B. This includes revisions expanding the general applicability of provisions in Reg. 7 to sources in the portion of northern Weld County within the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that are not included in the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, revisions clarifying the dates defining new and existing sources for respective ozone standards, and revisions updating the regulation to refer to a newer version of applicable EPA reference methods used to demonstrate compliance.
The June 26, 2023 submittal includes revisions to Reg. 7 in addition to those identified above, but the EPA is not proposing action on those revisions in this rulemaking. They will instead be addressed by the EPA in separate rulemakings at a later date. As described previously, the rule provisions of the June 26, 2023 submittal for motor vehicle coating materials, and which were structured as a contingency measure for the DMNFR nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, were no longer required with respect to the Moderate area classification for that NAAQS following the EPA granting Colorado's voluntary reclassification request. Included with its April 2, 2025 submittal, the State adopted revisions described below to repurpose these emission control requirements as a Serious nonattainment area contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In the State's May 23, 2024 submittal, Reg. 7 was retitled from “Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Control of Hydrocarbons via Oil and Gas Emissions (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) & Nitrogen Oxides (NO
After adopting Reg. 25, on April 2, 2025, the State submitted a third SIP submittal to the EPA, which included revisions to parts A and B of Reg. 25. This includes revisions to Reg. 25, Part A at section II.C.2. concerning general emission limitations for all new sources, and which are clerical in nature and reflect that the listed regulations are not applicable to all emission sources. The revisions to Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P. included: (1) in section I.P.7., correcting the numbering, with references in several subsections changed from I.P.6. to I.P.7.; (2) in sections I.P.1.b., I.P.3., I.P.4.b. and I.P.7., changing “sixty days” to “May 1, 2026”; changing “moderate” to “serious”; changing “2015” to “2008” in relation to the relevant ozone NAAQS; and (3) adding section I.P.8., which is related to reporting requirements.
The 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan submitted to the EPA identifies two contingency measures that Colorado deemed feasible for the Serious area attainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Section 3.1 of the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan includes the State's calculations for determining emission reductions representing “one year's worth” of progress for the area.
Colorado reviewed each source category in the 2026 emissions inventory for NO
After Colorado disqualified already adopted measures and measures that the State lacked authority to adopt, the State evaluated the feasibility of candidate measures (control measures that may be appropriate as contingency measures if they are determined to be technologically and economically feasible) based on the time required to implement the measure, technological/economic feasibility, and whether a measure met legal criteria for adoption. Based on this analysis, the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan identifies two control strategies for EPA evaluation as contingency measures, as described in section IV.B.3. of this preamble, and provides an infeasibility justification to show that its 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan is approvable despite providing less than the recommended amount of emission reductions, due to a lack of feasible measures in the DMNFR nonattainment area.
The 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan describes various measures that the State has already implemented (referred to as “on-the-books” measures), several of which are state-only requirements, but which are not candidate contingency measures because “they are already implemented.”
The State also evaluated whether the potential contingency measures that it identified are subject to technological or economic factors that would render a candidate measure infeasible as a contingency measure.
Colorado evaluated potential contingency measures for feasibility and summarized the measures the State deemed infeasible.
With respect to point sources, Colorado considered non-oil and gas point sources (the State evaluated oil and gas point sources separately) through evaluation of existing stationary source regulations.
Among other specific contingency measures considered for the stationary point source sector, Colorado evaluated the feasibility of implementing a minor source emission offset program, but determined that it would be infeasible to implement and achieve emission reductions within two years, given the volume of stationary sources that would be affected.
Colorado also evaluated potential contingency measures for oil and gas sources. This evaluation included the potential for prohibiting venting of gas associated with blowdowns during the ozone season as well as implementing best management practices in response to ozone advisories that request that operators take voluntary measures to reduce emissions on days with forecasted high ozone. The State deemed these two measures infeasible as contingency measures based on the economic feasibility on a cost per ton basis of prohibiting venting to the atmosphere associated with blowdowns,
In the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan, the State further described the existing requirements for oil and gas sources that could not be candidate contingency measures because they are already adopted, which include requirements for leak detection and repair, hydrocarbon liquid loadout from storage tanks, flowback vessels, and natural-gas reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).
Colorado included an evaluation of area source measures, including for cannabis cultivation operations, asphalt formulation restrictions, non-fumigant pesticide requirements, and emission reductions from livestock waste, as well as an evaluation of existing rules in other states. In the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan and Strategy Summary, the State justifies its finding of infeasibility as to emission control requirements for cannabis cultivation operations and hot mix asphalt plants on the basis that the State could not feasibly achieve further emission reductions within two years.
The State also evaluated mobile source control measures, including for both on-road and nonroad mobile sources, as potential contingency measures.
Colorado identified two control measures as contingency measures for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the DMNFR Serious nonattainment area, and submitted these to the EPA for evaluation and inclusion into the SIP: (1) an existing state-only requirement for retrofitting pneumatic controllers at upstream oil and gas facilities which the EPA is not proposing action on in this rulemaking, and (2) a rule for control of VOC emissions from motor vehicle coating facilities including VOC content limitations, control efficiency requirements, and periodic reporting. A summary of the two measures identified by Colorado is below. Colorado also determined the expected emission reductions from these measures, which are presented in table 2.
As stated previously, the EPA is not acting on the pneumatic controller retrofit contingency measure in this action and therefore is not evaluating the measure further as part of this rulemaking. Our proposed approval of Colorado's 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan is based solely on the motor vehicle coatings measure described below and the infeasibility justification.
Colorado's June 26, 2023 SIP submittal included requirements to reduce VOC emissions from motor vehicle coating facilities, which the State initially intended for use as a contingency measure for the Moderate nonattainment area plan for the DMNFR area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Colorado's June 26, 2023 submittal explains that the motor vehicle coatings contingency measure is based on the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings, which “achieves additional reductions of VOCs from automotive coatings beyond EPA's national automobile refinish rule.”
The CAA requires that states meet certain procedural requirements before submitting a SIP revision to the EPA, including the requirement that states adopt SIP revisions after reasonable notice and public hearing.
As discussed in section IV.A. of this document, Colorado's June 26, 2023 submittal added motor vehicle coating requirements in Reg. 7, Part C as a new section I.P., which included provisions that the State structured to serve as a contingency measure for the Moderate nonattainment area plan with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The June 26, 2023 submittal also revised Reg. 7, Part A concerning applicability and general provisions that apply across Reg. 7, including the relevant motor vehicle coating requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions from the June 26, 2023 submittal. The EPA is not proposing action on revisions to other sections of Reg. 7, Part C from the June 26, 2023 submittal besides those described above and will take action on them in a future rulemaking.
Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions from the May 23, 2024 submittal that duplicate portions of Reg. 7 Part A in Reg. 25 Part A, and relocate Reg. 7 Part C requirements into Reg. 25 Part B. Reg. 7, Part A concerns “Applicability and General Provisions” that apply across Reg. 7, but only the pieces of Reg. 7, Part A relevant to the control of emissions from surface coating, solvents, asphalt, graphic arts and printing, and pharmaceuticals are included in the newly established Reg. 25, Part A. Reg. 7, Part A is not being removed from Reg. 7 given its applicability to the sections of Reg. 7 that are not being relocated to standalone regulations. Because the EPA is not yet taking action on all of the June 26, 2023 revisions to Reg. 7, Part C, we are not taking action to relocate these provisions to Reg. 25, Part B in this action and will propose action on the
The EPA also is proposing to approve revisions from the April 2, 2025 submittal including the clerical revision to Reg. 25, Part A, section II.C.2.; the corrected numbering of Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P.7.; and the addition of reporting provisions related to the VOC content of products used at motor vehicle coating facilities in Reg. 25, Part C, section I.P.8. Lastly, because the motor vehicle coatings contingency measure was never triggered for the Moderate DMNFR nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see discussion above at sections I. and IV.), the EPA proposes to approve the revisions to Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P. in the April 2, 2025 submittal that serve to repurpose the motor vehicles coating measure as a contingency measure for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In summary, the EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to Reg. 7, Part A concerning applicability and general provisions; the addition of Reg. 7, Part C, section I.P. motor vehicle coating requirements; a revision to Reg. 7, Part C, section I.A.3.a. updating a reference date; the copying over, with minor revisions, of Reg. 7 Part A to Reg. 25, Part A; the relocation of Reg. 7, Part C, sections I.A and I.P to Reg. 25, Part B, sections I.A. and I.P.; the revision to Reg. 25, Part A, section II.C.2.; and the revisions to Reg. 25, Part B, section I.P. Given that the revisions that the EPA is evaluating span multiple SIP submittals from Colorado, we have included table 3 detailing the revisions from each submittal that we are proposing to approve in this document. The remainder of the revisions included with each submittal that we are not proposing action on in this proposed rulemaking will be addressed by the EPA in separate rulemakings at a later date.
The EPA has reviewed the calculations in the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan, as summarized in section IV.B.1. of this document, and is proposing to find that the State calculated one year's worth of progress for NO
The EPA has reviewed the State's infeasibility justification submitted to support its determination that there are no feasible control measures that could be adopted as contingency measures in addition to the motor vehicle coatings measure. The EPA has reviewed the processes used by Colorado to assess a range of potential measures across the stationary, area, mobile, and oil and gas source categories. For the reasons explained below, and considering the relevant emission sources and other facts specific to this nonattainment area, the EPA is proposing to find that the motor vehicle coatings contingency measure together with the State's infeasibility justification satisfies the Serious ozone nonattainment area contingency measures requirement under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for the DMNFR area with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Colorado evaluated other potential contingency measures and justified its determination of infeasibility, where applicable, using EPA-recommended procedures.
While air agencies do not need to evaluate measures that they do not have the legal authority to implement, the EPA recommends that an infeasibility justification include a description of any such measures that were recommended by the public or are being implemented elsewhere, and an explanation of why the air agency lacks the legal authority to implement them.
The EPA is proposing to determine that the emission reductions that could be achieved for this nonattainment area from livestock waste emission reduction measures like diet manipulation and manure management practices would be
The EPA agrees with Colorado's assessment that emission reductions in the SIP must be permanent, enforceable and quantifiable. In particular, contingency measures must be surplus over and above what is required for other nonattainment plan requirements. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to find that Colorado reasonably excluded certain potential measures from consideration as candidate contingency measures due to challenges concerning SIP creditability. This includes measures where there is limited ability to quantify associated emission reductions over the two-year timeframe in which reductions from contingency measures should be achieved, like zero-fare transit, anti-idling programs, an incentive program for electric vehicles/charging stations, planting of lower-VOC tree species, an incentive program providing financial assistance following failed vehicle emission tests, a heavy-duty truck engine chip retrofit program, and an incentive program to replace older light-duty vehicles.
If a triggering event occurs before an air agency adopts measures to satisfy the contingency measures plan requirement, the timeframe for achieving reductions (one year; if necessary, two years) should be evaluated based on the adoption date of the measure rather than the now-passed trigger date.
Technological feasibility includes consideration of factors such as operating procedures, raw materials requirements, physical plant layout, and adverse environmental impacts such as water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements that would negate the environmental benefit of the emissions control. Colorado determined that implementing standards for materials to reduce VOC emissions from the use of cutback/emulsified asphalt would not be technologically feasible given the impact of altitude on paving operations. The EPA is proposing to find that Colorado provided an appropriate justification for the exclusion of the measure based on technological infeasibility. As described previously and evaluated below, technological infeasibility also encompasses the inability to implement a measure and achieve emission reductions from the measure in a suitable timeframe for contingency measures. In this evaluation, we have separated the consideration of timing of emission reductions from the broader technological infeasibility categorization to better characterize Colorado's analysis.
The EPA considers measures to be technologically infeasible if they could not be implemented and achieve emission reductions in two years. Colorado's 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan includes information on the lack of available underlying data for source categories, and other considerations for certain source types that the State determined would preclude a full consideration of how candidate measures for such categories could be developed and implemented, and whether such measures would be technologically and economically feasible. For example, Colorado determined that for the following potential control measures the pool of affected sources consists of a relatively large number of facilities, including small operations with minimal experience with regulatory requirements. These potential control measures would include measures for cannabis cultivation operations, diesel inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs for NO
As explained previously, in this circumstance where the triggering event for the required contingency measures is in the past, we consider the two-year timeframe applied from adoption of a candidate measure appropriate. It is still important for a state to have measures that will serve the purpose of achieving the additional emission reductions that the contingency measures were intended to achieve, had a state adopted contingency measures as part of the attainment plan SIP submittal or at least in advance of the triggering event.
Accordingly, we are proposing to find that Colorado adequately assessed the feasibility of potential control measures as contingency measures. Colorado followed a process to address the contingency measures requirement that included (1) identifying candidate contingency measures, (2) assessing the feasibility of each candidate measure, and (3) providing a infeasibility justification for each candidate measure explaining why the State rejected it as infeasible as a contingency measure for
Furthermore, although not directly addressed in Colorado's infeasibility justification, the EPA evaluated the stringency of the State's existing SIP-approved emission limitations for combustion equipment in Regulation 26, Part B, section II.A.4. (previously Regulation 7, Part E, section II.A.4.). This includes emission limitations for boilers, stationary combustion turbines, RICE, and process heaters. The EPA has previously determined that these emission limitations constitute RACT as required by the CAA for major stationary sources of NO
The emission reductions from the motor vehicle coatings measure will be considered as the contingency measures reductions that should have been triggered by EPA's prior finding that the DMNFR Serious nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. The EPA is proposing to find that this measure is consistent with applicable CAA requirements for contingency measures, and accordingly to approve the motor vehicle coatings measure as a contingency measure with respect to the contingency measures requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious nonattainment plan for the DMNFR area.
Based on the VOC emission reductions achieved by the motor vehicle coatings contingency measure, and Colorado's infeasibility justification for having contingency measures that achieve less than one year's worth of progress, the EPA proposes to find that the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan fulfills the contingency measures requirements for the Serious nonattainment plan for the DMNFR area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final approval of the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures plan would cure the EPA's prior disapproval of the State's March 22, 2021 SIP submittal intended to meet the contingency measures requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the DMNFR Serious nonattainment area.
The EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by the State of Colorado to address the contingency measures requirement for the Serious area nonattainment plan for the DMNFR area for purposes of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is proposing this action based on our determination that the 2024 DMNFR Contingency Measures Plan meets the requirements of CAA
In this same issue of the
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed action, our rationale for the proposed action, and any other pertinent matters related to the issues discussed in this document. We encourage comments regarding whether there are new or more stringent control measures not identified in Colorado's analysis and which may be feasible as contingency measures. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before taking final action.
Under section 110(
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 25 pertaining to the “Control of Emissions from Surface Coating, Solvents, Asphalt, Graphic Arts and Printing, and Pharmaceuticals” and Regulation 7 pertaining to the “Control of Ozone via Ozone Precursors and Control of Hydrocarbons via Oil and Gas Emissions (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) & Nitrogen Oxides (NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. The proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) on November 4, 2024. The SIP revisions consist of revised Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules implementing the Nitrogen
Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2024-0528, at
Neena Nallaballi, Air and Radiation Division (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-1770,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the control of emissions during petroleum liquid storage, loading and transfer in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The revisions to this rule include adding incorporations by reference to other state rules, adding definitions specific to the rule, revising unnecessarily restrictive or duplicative language, and making administrative wording changes. These revisions do not impact the stringency of the SIP or have an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2025.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0175 to
Steven Brown, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7718; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2025-0175, at
The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on February 15, 2019, and a supplemental submission on August 1, 2019. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-2.260 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum
The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 15, 2018, to September 6, 2018, and held a public hearing on August 30, 2018. Missouri received twenty-one (21) comments from five (5) sources during the comment period on 10 CSR 10-2.260. The EPA provided twelve comments. Missouri included additional clarification to EPA by submitting supplemental information on August 1, 2019 to clarify and answer questions EPA made during the comment period. Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on public comments prior to submitting to EPA, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. As explained above and in more detail in the technical support document, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-2.260 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer.” We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-2.260 discussed in section II. of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The purpose of this state regulation is to restrict VOC emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the Kansas City metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee meets no less than once annually to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on the programs and services delivered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) under the U.S. Grain Standards Act. Recommendations by the Committee help AMS meet the needs of its customers, who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace.
The meeting will be held on June 11, 2025, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern.
Kendra Kline by phone at (202) 690-2410 or by email at
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to AMS with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71-87k). Information about the Committee is available on the AMS website at
The agenda for the upcoming meeting will include status briefings on recommendations, general program updates, and a guest speaker on export trends.
The meeting will be open to the public. Public participation will be limited to written statements and interested parties who have registered to present comments orally to the Committee.
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The Census Bureau developed the ACS to collect and update demographic, social, economic, and housing data every year that are essentially the same as the “long-form” data that the Census Bureau formerly collected once a decade as part of the census. The ACS is an ongoing monthly survey that collects detailed data from about 3.54 million addresses in the United States and about 36,000 addresses in Puerto Rico each year. The ACS also collects detailed socioeconomic data from about 153,000 residents living in group quarters facilities in the United States and about 600 in Puerto Rico. The ACS is the only source of comparable data about social, economic, housing, and demographic characteristics for small areas and small subpopulations across the nation and in Puerto Rico. Every community in the nation continues to receive a detailed, statistical portrait of its social, economic, housing, and demographic characteristics each year through one-year and five-year ACS products.
To collect ACS data, the Census Bureau uses a well-researched mail contact strategy to encourage self-response to the survey. For addresses that were mailed survey materials but did not respond by mail, internet, or by calling our telephone questionnaire assistance line, the Census Bureau selects a subsample of all households and assigns them to the nonresponse follow-up data collection operation. Unmailable household addresses are sampled and also included in the nonresponse follow-up data collection operation.
To encourage self-response in the ACS, the Census Bureau sends up to five mailings to housing units selected to be in the sample. The first mailing, sent to all mailable addresses in the sample, includes an invitation to participate in the ACS online and states that a paper questionnaire will be sent in a few weeks to those unable to respond online. The second mailing is a letter that reminds respondents to complete the survey online, thanks them if they have already done so, and informs them that a paper questionnaire will be sent at a later date if the Census Bureau does not receive their response. In a third mailing, the paper questionnaire package is sent only to those sample addresses that have not completed the online questionnaire within two and a half weeks. The fourth mailing is a postcard that reminds respondents to respond and informs them that an interviewer may contact them if they do not complete the survey. A fifth mailing is a letter sent to respondents who have not completed the survey within five weeks. This letter provides a due date and reminds the respondents to complete their survey to be removed from future contact. The Census Bureau will ask those who fill out the survey online to provide an email address, which will be used to send an email reminder to respondents who started but did not complete the online form. The reminder asks them to log back in to finish responding to the survey. If the Census Bureau does not receive a response or if the household refuses to participate, the address may be selected for nonresponse follow-up data collection where the interview can be collected by telephone or personal visit using computer-assisted interviewing.
Some addresses are deemed unmailable because the address is incomplete or directs mail only to a post office box. The Census Bureau currently collects data for these housing units in the nonresponse follow-up data collection using online, computer-assisted personal interviewing, and computer-assisted telephone interviewing. A small sample of respondents from the nonresponse follow-up data collection interview are recontacted for quality assurance purposes.
For sample housing units in the Puerto Rico Community Survey, a different mail strategy is employed. The Census Bureau sends up to five mailings to a Puerto Rico address selected to be in the sample. The first mailing includes a prenotice letter. The second and fourth mailings include the paper questionnaire. The third and fifth mailings serve as a reminder to respond to the survey. The mail strategy has no references to an internet response option. If the Census Bureau does not receive a response or if the household refuses to participate, the address may be selected for nonresponse follow-up data collection where the interview can be collected by telephone or personal visit using computer-assisted interviewing technology.
The Puerto Rico addresses deemed unmailable because the address is incomplete or directs mail only to a post office box are collected by telephone or person visit using computer-assisted interviewing technology during nonresponse follow-up data collection. A small sample of respondents from the nonresponse follow-up data collection interview are recontacted for quality assurance purposes.
The Census Bureau collects data for group quarters through personal interview, online, or by paper. The Census Bureau can obtain the facility information by allowing the group quarters contact to upload the roster of residents online or by conducting a
Statistics produced from the ACS program may include a combination of data collected on the survey from respondents as well as administrative data from other sources.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed extension of the Annual Survey of School System Finances, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 7, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Kaitlin Hanak, Survey Statistician, Educational Finance Branch, 301-763-0229,
The U. S. Census Bureau plans to extend the current Office of Management and Budget clearance for the Annual Survey of School System Finances. The Annual Survey of School System Finances is a comprehensive source of prekindergarten through 12th grade public elementary-secondary school system finance data collected on a nationwide scale using uniform definitions, concepts, and procedures. The collection covers the revenues, expenditures, debt, and assets of all public elementary-secondary school systems. This data collection is cosponsored by and coordinated with the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) under interagency agreement in conjunction with the National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) (OMB #1850-0067) and the School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) (OMB #1850-0930).
The NCES uses this collection to satisfy its need for school district-level finance data. Data from this survey is included in the Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances (OMB No. 0607-0585) to produce state and national totals of government spending. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses data from the survey to develop figures for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to assess other public fiscal spending trends and events.
Data will be collected from State Education Agencies (SEAs) for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. SEAs appoint state fiscal coordinators to work with NCES and the U.S. Census Bureau to provide accurate and comparable data across states and jurisdictions. SEAs typically collect finance data from school districts for their own uses. Many states produce a state-specific chart of accounts or accounting manual to assist school districts in classifying and reporting finance data and producing government-wide financial statements. Uniform definitions and concepts of revenue, expenditure, debt, and assets are defined by the NCES handbook
Data on resources and spending patterns is helpful for parents to make choices for the education of their child. Uniform and comparable data helps states measure the effectiveness of resource allocation. The products of this data collection make it possible for data users to search a single database to obtain information on such things as per pupil expenditures and the percent of state, local, and federal funding for each school system. Elementary-secondary education related spending is the single largest financial activity of state and local governments. Education finance statistics provided by the Census Bureau allow for analyses of how public elementary-secondary school systems receive their funding and how they are spending their funds.
A letter is mailed electronically at the beginning of each survey period to solicit the assistance of the state
The survey form (F-33) contains item descriptions and definitions of the elementary-secondary education finance items collected jointly by the Census Bureau and NCES. It is used primarily as a worksheet and instruction guide by the state education agencies providing school finance data centrally for the school systems in their respective states. The Census Bureau collects almost all of the finance data for local school systems from state education agency databases through central collection arrangements with the state education agencies. The states transfer this information in electronic format over the internet via file transfer protocol. The Census Bureau has also facilitated central collection of school system finance data by accepting data in multiple formats.
Supplemental forms are sent to local school systems in states where the state education agency cannot centrally provide information on assets (F-33-L1), indebtedness (F-33-L2), or both (F-33-L3). School systems have the option of completing a paper form to mail back to the Census Bureau or completing the survey using an online web application.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include, or summarize, each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 8, 2025.
Hermes Pinilla, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477.
On January 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of active anode material (active anodes) from China.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner
On April 28, 2025, the petitioner submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation.
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids (disposable aluminum containers) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable May 8, 2025.
Brian Warnes (CVD) or Matthew Palmer (AD), AD/CVD Operations, Offices VII and III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028 or (202) 482-1678, respectively.
In accordance with sections 705(d), 735(d), and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on March 11, 2025, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less-than-fair-value (LFTV) of disposable aluminum containers from China and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of disposable aluminum containers from China.
On April 28, 2025, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by these orders is disposable aluminum containers from China. For a complete description of the scope of these orders,
On April 28, 2025, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of disposable aluminum containers that are sold in the United States for less than fair value. Therefore, in accordance with sections 735(c)(2) and 736 of the Act, Commerce is issuing this AD order. Because the ITC determined that imports of disposable aluminum containers from China are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from China, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise for all relevant entries of disposable aluminum containers from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of disposable aluminum containers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 30, 2024, the date of publication of the
With respect to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of disposable aluminum containers from China, we will instruct CBP to lift the suspension of liquidation and to refund all cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 1, 2024 (
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of disposable aluminum containers from China effective the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 733(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. Commerce published the
As stated above, based on the above-referenced affirmative final determination by the ITC that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of disposable aluminum containers from China,
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of disposable aluminum containers from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 28, 2024, the date of publication of the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of disposable aluminum containers from China, we intend to instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 30, 2024, (
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, we will instruct CBP to reinstitute suspension of liquidation on all relevant entries of disposable aluminum containers from China, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
The net countervailable subsidy rates are as follows:
Section 703(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published its
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, Commerce instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of disposable aluminum containers from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after February 25, 2025, the date on which the provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
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.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to disposable aluminum containers from China pursuant to sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise covered by the orders is disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids produced primarily from flat-rolled aluminum. The subject merchandise includes disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids regardless of shape or size and whether or not wrinkled or smooth.
The term “disposable” is used to identify an aluminum article that is designed to be used once, or for a limited number of times, and then recycled or otherwise disposed.
“Containers, pans, and “trays” are receptacles for holding goods.
The subject disposable aluminum lids are intended to be used in combination with disposable containers produced from aluminum or other materials (
Disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids are also included within the scope regardless of whether the surface has been embossed, printed, coated (including with a non-stick substance), or decorated, and regardless of the style of the edges. The inclusion of a nonaluminum lid or dome sold or packaged with an otherwise in-scope article does not remove the article from the scope, however, only the disposable aluminum container, pan, tray, and lid is covered by the scope definition.
Disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids are typically used in food-related applications, including but not limited to food preparation, packaging, baking, barbequing, reheating, takeout, or storage, but also have other uses. Regardless of end use, disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids that meet the scope definition and are not otherwise excluded are subject merchandise.
Excluded from the scope are disposable aluminum casks, drums, cans, boxes and similar containers (including disposable aluminum cups and bottles) properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7612.90. However, aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids that would otherwise be covered by the scope are not excluded based solely on the fact that they are being classified under HTSUS subheading 7612.90.5000 due to the thickness of aluminum being less than 0.04 mm or greater than 0.22 mm.
The flat-rolled aluminum used to produce the subject articles may be made to ASTM specifications ASTM B479 or ASTM B209-14 but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of the specification, however, all disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids meeting the scope description are included in the scope.
Disposable aluminum containers, pans, trays, and lids are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7615.10.7125. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this proceeding may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7612.90.1090, 7615.10.3015, 7615.10.3025, 7615.10.7130, 7615.10.7155, 7615.10.7180, 7615.10.9100, and 8309.90.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Catherine Brescia, Attorney Advisor, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-6236; email:
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.
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by “OMB Control No. 3038-0052” by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Roger Smith, Associate Chief Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60604; 202-418-5344; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
In general, OMB Control Number 3038-0052 covers all information collections in part 38, including subpart A and the DCM core principles (
The collection also includes information collection requirements under regulation 1.52 regarding the Enhanced Protections Afforded Customer and Customer Funds Held by Futures Clearing Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations for DCMs.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Catherine Brescia, Attorney Advisor, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-6236; email:
Regulations 23.701 and 23.704 establish reporting requirements that are mandated by Section 4s(l) and, thus, are necessary to implement the objectives of Section 4s(l). Regulation 23.701 requires that the SD or MSP notify the counterparty at the beginning of the swap trading relationship of the counterparty's right to require segregation of initial margin, and to permit the counterparty to change that election by written notice to the SD or MSP. Regulation 23.704 requires that, in certain circumstances, an SD or MSP must report to the counterparty, on a quarterly basis, that the back-office procedures of the SD or MSP relating to margin and collateral requirements are in compliance with the agreement of the counterparties. The data required to be compiled and maintained pursuant to Regulations 23.701 and 23.704 would be used by uncleared swap counterparties (and, in some instances, the CFTC and self-regulatory organizations).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
•
•
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments submitted to the Commission should include only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Catherine Brescia, Attorney Advisor, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-6236; email:
Section 4d of the CEA requires Futures Commission Merchants (“FCMs”) to register with the Commission. It further requires FCMs to segregate customer funds. Section 4f of the CEA requires FCMs to maintain certain levels of capital and Section 4g of the CEA establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for FCMs.
Section 4s(j)(2) of the CEA requires each Swap Dealer (“SD”) and Major Swap Participant (“MSP”) to have risk management systems adequate for managing its day-to-day business. Section 4s(j)(4) of the CEA requires each SD and MSP to have internal systems and procedures to obtain any necessary information to perform any of the functions set forth in Section 4s.
Pursuant to these provisions, the Commission adopted Commission regulation 1.73 which applies to clearing members that are FCMs and Commission regulation 23.609 which applies to clearing members that are SDs or MSPs.
The regulations require clearing members, who are FCMs, SDs, or MSPs to: (1) establish risk-based limits based on position size, order size, margin requirements, or similar factors, and for FCMs, risk-based limits must be established for the proprietary account and in each customer account; (2) screen orders for compliance with the risk-based limits; (3) monitor for adherence to the risk-based limits intra-day and overnight; (4) conduct stress tests under extreme but plausible conditions of all positions at least once per week, and for FCMs, the stress tests must be conducted for all positions in the proprietary account and in each customer account that could pose material risk to the FCM; (5) evaluate its ability to meet initial margin requirements at least once per week; (6) evaluate its ability to meet variation margin requirements in cash at least once per week; (7) evaluate its ability to liquidate the positions it clears in an orderly manner, and estimate the cost of the liquidation, and for FCMs, the evaluation must be done at least once per quarter and conducted for all positions in the proprietary account and customer accounts; and (8) test all lines of credit at least once per year.
Each of these items has been observed by Commission staff as an element of an existing sound risk management program at an FCM, SD, or MSP. The Commission regulations require each FCM, SD, or MSP clearing member to establish written procedures to comply with these regulations and to keep records documenting its compliance.
The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to implement certain provisions of the CEA, including ensuring that registrants exercise effective risk management and for the efficient operation of trading venues among FCMs, SDs, and MSPs that are clearing members, in order to maintain financial stability at derivatives clearing organizations (“DCOs”).
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.
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (Department).
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 Victoria Hammer, (202) 260-1438.
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.
The information provided to the Department enables the Department to make eligibility determinations for LEAs and to calculate formula allocations for each eligible LEA. Form 1 consists of the REAP Eligibility Spreadsheet through which SEAs provide to the Department eligibility and allocation data for both the RLIS and SRSA programs. Form 2 consists of the application package for LEAs under the SRSA program. Form 3 consists of the application package for SQAs under the RLIS program. This is a request for extension of the current information collection package (OMB #1810-0646), updated for the future fiscal years in which the collection would apply.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces tests, test forms, and delivery formats that the Secretary determines to be suitable for use in the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS). The Secretary also announces an extension of the sunset period for two tests with National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS) approvals that expired on February 5, 2025, and September 7, 2024. The sunset period for these tests is extended to June 30, 2026. This notice relates to the approved information collections under OMB control numbers 1830-0027 and 1830-0567.
John LeMaster, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-0903. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use in Literacy/English Language Arts at all Adult Basic Education (ABE) levels of the NRS for a period of seven years from the date of publication of this notice:
The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use in Literacy/English Language Arts at all ABE levels of the NRS during a sunset period ending on June 30, 2026:
The Secretary has determined that the following test is suitable for use in Literacy/English Language Arts and Mathematics at all ABE levels of the NRS during a sunset period ending on June 30, 2026:
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement with changes of a previously 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 Patrick Rooney, (202) 219-1662.
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 Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Proposed subsequent arrangement to retransfer U.S.-obligated nuclear material from Australia to France for reprocessing.
This document is being issued under the authority of the
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than May 23, 2025 and after 15 days of continuous session of Congress has elapsed, beginning the day after the date on which the report required under section 131b.(1) of the
Ms. Caterina Fox, Director, Office of Nonproliferation Policy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, telephone: (202) 586-4460, or email:
This subsequent arrangement details the retransfer of 186 spent U-Si fuel assemblies containing 425,145.70g of U.S.-obligated low enriched uranium of which 47,711.91g is enriched in the isotope U-235, an enrichment level of 11.22%. In addition to the low-enriched uranium, the spent fuel assemblies also contain 4000.63g of U.S.-obligated plutonium. The spent fuel assemblies were irradiated at the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) research reactor at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in Lucas Heights, New South Wales, Australia.
The spent fuel is being retransferred to Orano S.A. at the La Hague reprocessing plant in France; a member of Euratom. At La Hague, the material is intended for recovery and reprocessing. Any uranium and plutonium recovered during the reprocessing will be titled over to Orano S.A. The plutonium recovered is to be incorporated into mixed oxide fuel assemblies for use in civilian nuclear power plants in France or in the European Union or until it is disposed of in accordance with terms that are acceptable to the United States.
In accordance with section 131 of the
This document of the Department of Energy of the Department of Energy was signed on April 30, 2025, by Teresa Robbins, Acting Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
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 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 2, 2025, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL25-73-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether Longview Power, LLC's Rate Schedule is considered unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL25-73-000 established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL25-73-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2024), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” 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
This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental assessment (EA) for Rover Pipeline, LLC's (Rover) Rover-Bulger Compressor Station and Harmon Creek Meter Station Expansion Project (Project).
If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that the commission received the following accounting Request 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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 507G Line Abandonment Project (Project), proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Tennessee) in the above-referenced docket.
The proposed Project consists of the abandonment in-place of approximately 58.0 miles and abandonment by removal of approximately 17.3 miles of the 16-inch-diameter 507G-100 Line and disconnection and removal of appurtenant facilities. In addition, the Project involves abandonment in-place of about 7.9 miles and abandonment by removal of about 1.1 miles of the 12-inch-diameter 507G-500 supply lateral pipeline, and disconnection and removal of appurtenant facilities. In addition, under Section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations, Tennessee intends to relocate an existing pigging facility.
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 2, 2025.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP24-529-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
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
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
On April 30, 2025, the Town of Stowe Electric Department submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) documentation from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (Vermont DEC) that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from the Town of Stowe Electric Department, in conjunction with the above captioned project on April 25, 2025. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
If Vermont DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on proposed revisions of the currently approved information collection, FERC-725N, (Mandatory Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability Standards).
Comments on the collection of information are due June 9, 2025.
Send written comments on FERC-725N to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468,
The FERC-725N information collection requirements are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number.
The Commission solicits comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained,
The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed upgrade to the generating units and construction of a new transformer at the Eel Weir Project and the proposed modifications to the transmission lines at both the Dundee and the Eel Weir projects. The EA also contains alternatives to the proposed action and concludes that the proposed amendment would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The EA may be viewed on the Commission's website at
All comments must be filed by June 2, 2025.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system 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
For further information, contact Jeremy Jessup at 202-502-6779 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection,
Comments on the collections of information are due July 7, 2025.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The regulations at 18 CFR part 154 include provisions that allow an interstate natural gas pipeline to submit filings seeking to:
• Recover research, development and demonstration expenditures (18 CFR 154.401);
• Recover annual charges assessed under 18 CFR part 382 (18 CFR 154.402); and
• Passthrough, on a periodic basis, a single cost or revenue item such as fuel use and unaccounted-for natural gas in kind (18 CFR 154.403).
FERC-542 filings may be submitted at any time or on a regularly scheduled basis in accordance with the pipeline company's tariff. Filings may be: (1) accepted; (2) suspended and set for hearing; (3) minimal suspension; or (4) suspended for further review, such as technical conference or some other type of Commission action. The Commission implements these filing requirements under 18 CFR part 154.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Area Sources (EPA ICR Number 2294.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0623) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before June 9, 2025.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0116, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard, D243-05, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW.
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
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 9, 2025.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than May 23, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on May 20, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and May 21, 2025, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. #1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The public will also have the option to participate, and the advisory committee meeting will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded through an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform.
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings, including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2025-N-1107. The docket will close on May 23, 2025. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before May 13, 2025, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments 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.” FDA 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
Jessica Seo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7699, email:
On the morning of May 20, 2025, the Committee will discuss supplemental biologics license application (sBLA) 761309/S-001, for COLUMVI (glofitamab) injection, submitted by Genentech, Inc. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL, NOS) who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
On the afternoon of May 20, 2025, the Committee will discuss sBLA 761145/S-029, for DARZALEX FASPRO (daratumumab and hyaluronidase) injection, for subcutaneous use, submitted by Janssen Biotech, Inc. The proposed indication (use) is as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM).
On the morning of May 21, 2025, the Committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 215793, for (mitomycin) intravesical solution, submitted by UroGen Pharma, Inc. The
On the afternoon of May 21, 2025, the Committee will discuss supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 211651/S-013, for TALZENNA (talazoparib) capsules, submitted by Pfizer Inc. The proposed indication (use) is in combination with enzalutamide for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting due to technical issues. Because there is a need for an immediate meeting of the Committee, including the time-sensitive need for input and public discussion on the meeting subject, and because qualified members of the committee were available at this time and scheduled to participate in the meeting, the Agency concluded that there are exceptional circumstances that support holding this meeting without the customary 15-day public notice.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material will be available at the location of the advisory committee meeting and at
For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Seo (see
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection supports Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, programs, forms, and guidance. Section 519 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360i) (Records and Reports on Devices) requires user facilities, manufacturers, and importers of medical devices to report adverse events involving medical devices to FDA and requires that medical device manufacturers and importers submit medical device reports (MDRs) electronically. These provisions are codified at part 803 (21 CFR part 803)—Medical Device Reporting. The regulations also provide for recordkeeping requirements and certain exemptions and alternative reporting. Additionally, the regulations permit user facilities to submit paper-based annual reports, for which we have provided form FDA 3419 entitled, “Medical Device Reporting Annual User Facility Report.”
Respondents are required to report adverse events involving medical devices to the FDA. The information that is obtained from these reports will be used to evaluate risks associated with medical devices and enable FDA to take appropriate regulatory measures to protect the public health. Complete, accurate, and timely adverse event information is necessary for the identification of emerging device problems so the agency can protect the public health under section 519 of the FD&C Act. FDA makes the releasable information available to the public for downloading on its website (
In an effort at reducing burden, we have developed the Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for certain devices, which allows for respondent reporting of multiple malfunction events in a single report on a quarterly basis. The
The final order “Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests” (May 16, 2022; 87 FR 29661) established special controls for certain Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) serological diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3956) and for HIV nucleic acid tests (NATs) diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3957) to support their classification into class II, including submission of a log of all complaints annually for a period of 5 years following FDA clearance of a traditional premarket notification (510(k)) submission for these devices. (Information collections associated with premarket notification (510(k)) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.)
Earlier notification through the submission of the complaint log enables us to more promptly determine whether public health issues have been adequately addressed. The agency would not otherwise evaluate the kind of complaint information that would be included in the log until an FDA inspection, which typically occurs less frequently than annually. Implementing these specific reporting measures as part of the special controls for these devices is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for HIV diagnostic and supplemental tests subject to the reclassification order.
Provisions of part 4 subpart B (21 CFR part 4, subpart B), provide that when information regarding an event that involves a death or serious injury, or an adverse event, associated with the use of a combination product is received by the product sponsor, the information must be provided to the other constituent part applicant(s) no later than 5 calendar days after receipt. Part 4 also explains how and where to submit reports and provides for associated recordkeeping. These requirements are described in part 803.
Respondents are manufacturers and importers of medical devices and device user facilities. Device user facility means a hospital, ambulatory surgical facility, nursing home, outpatient diagnostic facility, or outpatient treatment facility as defined in § 803.3, which is not a physician's office (also defined in § 803.3). Respondents are also sponsors (manufacturers) of device-led combination products (see part 4, subpart B). Respondents also include manufacturers of HIV diagnostic and supplemental test devices.
Manufacturer and importer respondents submit reports electronically using FDA Form 3500A (approved under OMB control number 0910-0291) via either “eSubmitter” for low-volume reporters or Health Level Seven (HL7) Individual Case Study Report (ICSR) (HL7 ICSR) for high-volume reporters. User facilities reporting under §§ 803.30 and 803.32 have the option of electronic or paper-based reporting. User facility annual reporting under § 803.33 is paper based, using form FDA 3419. Instructions for submitting the information are available in §§ 803.11, 803.12, and 803.20, and on FDA's public website at
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Upon review of this information collection, we updated the burden estimates based on internal data regarding MDRs received by FDA for fiscal year (FY) 2024. Device-led combination product reporting and disclosure under part 4, subpart B, are included in the burden estimates. Based on FY2024 data for “Manufacturer Reporting 803.50 through 803.53,” we estimate 1,871 respondents and 2,320,393 total annual responses.
The FDA notification and order granting alternative entitled, “Medical Devices and Device-led Combination Products; Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting Program for Manufacturers” grants an alternative under § 803.19 to permit manufacturer reporting of certain device malfunctions in summary form on a quarterly basis. The associated FDA guidance entitled “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers” (August 2024) is intended to help manufacturers better understand and use the VMSR Program. The Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program does not apply to reportable death or serious injury events, which are required to be reported to FDA within the mandatory 30-calendar day timeframe, under §§ 803.50 and 803.52, or within the 5-work day timeframe under § 803.53. Thus, if a manufacturer participating in the program becomes aware of information reasonably suggesting that a device it markets may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, then the manufacturer must submit an individual MDR for that event because it involves a reportable death or serious injury. We expect that a summary report will take approximately the same amount of time to prepare as an individual report.
Unlike manufacturers, device user facilities are not required to submit malfunction reports under part 803. User facilities, such as hospitals or nursing homes, are required to submit MDRs to FDA and/or the manufacturer only for reportable death or serious injury events. (See section 519(b) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 803.30(a).) We believe that by permitting alternative reporting for certain devices, the VMSR Program may reduce burden on respondents who elect to participate and are otherwise subject to mandatory requirements.
Special controls established in the final order “Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Serological Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Nucleic Acid Diagnostic and Supplemental Tests” to support the class II classification of certain HIV serological diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3956) and for HIV NATs diagnostic and supplemental tests (21 CFR 866.3957) require the submission of a log of all complaints annually for a period of 5 years following FDA clearance of a traditional premarket notification (510(k)) submission for these devices. (Information collections associated with premarket notification (510(k)) are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.) Although manufacturers of HIV serological diagnostic and supplemental tests and HIV NAT diagnostic and supplemental tests are already required to maintain complaint files and to review and evaluate complaints for these devices under 21
We assume a cost of $10 associated with the payment of an annual fee to maintain e-certification will apply to each respondent. We estimate a total operating and maintenance cost of $18,710 ($10 × 1,871 respondents).
Since the last OMB approval, we have adjusted the respondent and response estimates based on FY 2024 data. We also adjusted the Average Burden per Response for “Exemptions—803.19” and “Importer Reporting, Death and Serious Injury—803.40 and 803.42” from 0.1 hour to 1 hour to correct an error introduced in a previous request for extension of this information collection. These adjustments have resulted in an overall increase of 1,374,708 total responses, and a corresponding increase of 262,681 total burden hours.
We are revising this information collection to add the FDA guidance entitled “Voluntary Malfunction Summary Reporting (VMSR) Program for Manufacturers” (August 2024;
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The committee will meet in an open session to discuss and make recommendations on the selection of the 2025-2026 Formula for COVID-19 vaccines for use in the United States. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held virtually on May 22, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
All meeting participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. The online web conference meeting will be available on the day of the meeting by visiting
Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2025-N-1146. The docket will close on May 23, 2025. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before noon by May 14, 2025, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after May 14 and by May 23, 2025 will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments 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:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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.”
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
• 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
CDR Valerie Marshall, MPH, PMP, USPHS, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 202-657-8533
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at:
For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact CDR Valerie Marshall, MPH, PMP, USPHS at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application; proposed incidental harassment authorization; draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, from Trident Seafoods Corporation, propose to authorize nonlethal incidental take by harassment of small numbers of the Southwest Alaska stock of northern sea otters (
Comments on this proposed incidental harassment authorization and the accompanying draft environmental assessment must be received by June 9, 2025.
•
•
• We will post all comments at
Stephanie Burgess, by email at
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
(1) is of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock;
(2) will have a negligible impact on such species or stocks; and
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of these species or stocks for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives.
If the requisite findings are made, we issue an authorization that sets forth the following, where applicable:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking by harassment, including, in certain circumstances, requirements for the independent peer review of proposed monitoring plans or other research proposals.
The term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. “Harassment” means any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (the MMPA defines this as “Level A harassment”), or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (the MMPA defines this as “Level B harassment”).
The terms “negligible impact” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (
The term “small numbers” is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27. However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates “small numbers” with “negligible impacts.” We recognize “small numbers” and “negligible impacts” as two separate and distinct considerations when reviewing requests for incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) under the MMPA (see
The term “least practicable adverse impact” is not defined in the MMPA or its enacting regulations. For this IHA, we ensure the least practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are effective in reducing the impact of project activities, but they are not so restrictive as to make project activities unduly burdensome or impossible to undertake and complete.
If the requisite findings are made, we shall issue an IHA, which may set forth the following, where applicable: (i) permissible methods of taking; (ii) 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 subsistence uses by coastal-dwelling Alaska Native people (if applicable); and (iii) requirements for monitoring and reporting take by harassment.
On November 6, 2024, Trident Seafoods Corporation (hereafter “Trident” or “the applicant”) submitted an adequate and complete request to the FWS for authorization to take by Level B harassment a small number of northern sea otters (
The specified activity (hereafter “project”) will include installation and removal of piles for the construction of a ~46-by-23-meter (m) (~150-by-75-foot (ft)) dock at Trident's crew bunkhouse in Kodiak, Alaska (see figure 1), between March 2025 and March 2026. Trident will remove sixty 41-centimeter (cm) (16-inch (in)) diameter steel piles, seventy-five 36-cm (14-in) steel piles, and 100 36-cm (14-in) timber piles, and will permanently install the following types of piles: twenty-six 41-cm (16-in) and fifty-two 61-cm (24-in) diameter steel piles. Twenty 61-cm (24-in) diameter steel piles will be temporarily installed. Dock components that will be installed out of water include bull rail, fenders, mooring cleat, pre-cast concrete dock surface, and mast lights. Pile-driving activities will occur over 55 nonconsecutive days for approximately 94 hours during the course of 1 year from the date of issuance of the IHA. If the IHA is issued after Trident's intended start date in March 2025, the schedule for conducting the specified activities may be adjusted accordingly. Pile installation will be done with a combination of vibratory and down-the-hole (DTH) drilling. Temporary and extant piles will be removed by the deadpull method; it is anticipated that up to 10 percent of piles may require vibratory removal. Materials and equipment will be transported via barges, and workers will be transported to and from the barge work platform via skiff.
Additional project details may be reviewed in the application materials available as described under
There are three sea otter stocks in Alaska: the Southeast Alaska stock, the Southcentral Alaska stock, and the Southwest Alaska stock. Only the Southwest Alaska stock is represented in the project area. Detailed information about the biology of this stock can be found in the most recent Southwest Alaska revised stock assessment report (USFWS 2023), announced in the
Sea otters may be distributed anywhere within the specified project area other than upland areas; however, they generally occur in shallow water near the shoreline. They are most commonly observed within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour (USFWS 2023), although they can also be found in areas with deeper water. Ocean depth is generally correlated with distance to shore, and sea otters typically remain within 1 to 2 kilometers (km) (0.62 to 1.24 miles (mi)) of shore (Riedman and Estes 1990). They tend to be found closer to shore during storms but venture farther out during good weather and calm seas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969).
Sea otters are nonmigratory and generally do not disperse over long distances (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984), usually remaining within a few kilometers of their established feeding grounds (Kenyon 1981). Breeding males stay for all or part of the year in a breeding territory covering up to 1 km (0.62 mi) of coastline, while adult females maintain home ranges of approximately 8 to 16 km (5 to 10 mi), which may include one or more male territories. Juveniles move greater distances between resting and foraging areas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969; Riedman and Estes 1990; Tinker and Estes 1996). Although sea otters generally remain local to an area, they are capable of long-distance travel. Sea otters in Alaska have shown daily movement distances greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) at speeds up to 5.5 km per hour (3.4 mi per hour) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984).
The Southwest Alaska sea otter stock occurs from western Cook Inlet to Attu Island in the Aleutian chain (USFWS 2023). On August 9, 2005, the Southwest Alaska sea otter stock was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a distinct population segment (DPS) (70 FR 46366). This stock is divided into five management units: Western Aleutians; Eastern Aleutians; South Alaska Peninsula; Bristol Bay; and Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula (USFWS 2013, 2023). The specified geographic region occurs within the ranges of the Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula management units.
The range of the Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula management unit extends from Castle Cape to Western
We characterized “noise” as sound released into the environment from human activities that exceeds ambient levels or interferes with normal sound production or reception by sea otters. The terms “acoustic disturbance” or “acoustic harassment” are disturbances or harassment events resulting from noise exposure. Potential effects of noise exposure are likely to depend on the distance of the sea otter from the sound source, the level and intensity of sound the sea otter receives, background noise levels, noise frequency, noise duration, and whether the noise is pulsed or continuous. The actual noise level perceived by individual sea otters will also depend on whether the sea otter is above or below water and atmospheric and environmental conditions. Temporary disturbance of sea otters or localized displacement reactions are the most likely effects to occur from noise exposure.
Pile driving and marine construction activities will fall within the hearing range of sea otters. Controlled sound exposure trials on southern sea otters (
Exposure to high levels of sound may cause changes in behavior, masking of communications, temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity, discomfort, and injury to marine mammals. Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not rely on sound to orient themselves, locate prey, or communicate under water; therefore, masking of communications by anthropogenic sound is less of a concern than for other marine mammals. However, sea otters, especially mothers and pups, do use sound for communication in air (McShane et al. 1995), and sea otters may monitor underwater sound to avoid predators (Davis et al. 1987).
Noise exposure criteria for identifying underwater noise levels capable of causing Level A harassment to marine mammal species, including sea otters, have been established using the same methods as those used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2018; Southall et al. 2019). These criteria are based on estimated levels of sound exposure capable of causing a permanent shift in sensitivity of hearing (
Sound exposure thresholds incorporate two metrics of exposure: the peak level of instantaneous exposure likely to cause PTS and the cumulative sound exposure level (SEL
Thresholds based on TTS have been used as a proxy for Level B harassment (
The NMFS (2018) criteria do not identify thresholds for avoidance of Level B harassment. For pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), NMFS has adopted a 160-dB threshold for Level B harassment from exposure to impulsive noise and a 120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998, HESS 1999, NMFS 2018). These thresholds were developed from observations of mysticete (baleen) whales responding to airgun operations (
We have evaluated these thresholds and determined that the Level B threshold of 120 dB for non-impulsive noise is not applicable to sea otters. The 120-dB threshold is based on studies in which gray whales (
Based on the lack of sea otter disturbance response or any other reaction to the playback studies from the 1980s, as well as the absence of a clear pattern of disturbance or avoidance behaviors attributable to underwater sound levels up to about 160 dB resulting from low-frequency broadband noise, we assume 120 dB is not an appropriate behavioral response threshold for sea otters exposed to continuous underwater noise.
Based on the best available scientific information about sea otters, and closely related marine mammals when sea otter data are limited, the FWS has set 160 dB of received underwater sound as a threshold for Level B harassment by disturbance for sea otters for this proposed IHA. Exposure to unmitigated in-water noise levels between 125 Hz and 38 kHz that are greater than 160 dB—for both impulsive and non-impulsive sound sources—will be considered by the FWS as Level B harassment. Thresholds for Level A harassment (which entails the potential for injury) will be 232 dB peak or 203 dB SEL
The NMFS (2018) guidance neither addresses thresholds for preventing injury or disturbance from airborne noise, nor provides thresholds for avoidance of Level B harassment. Southall et al. (2007) suggested thresholds for PTS and TTS for sea lions exposed to nonpulsed airborne noise of 172.5 and 159 dB re (20 µPa)
Sea otters may be more resistant to the effects of sound disturbance and human activities than other marine mammals. For example, observers have noted no changes from southern sea otters in regard to their presence, density, or behavior in response to underwater sounds from industrial noise recordings at 110 dB and a frequency range of 50 Hz to 20 kHz and airguns, even at the closest distance of 0.5 nautical miles (<1 km or 0.6 mi) (Riedman 1983). Southern sea otters did not respond noticeably to noise from a single 1,638 cubic centimeters (cm
Northern sea otters were observed to exhibit a limited response to a variety of airborne and underwater sounds, including a warble tone, sea otter pup calls, calls from killer whales (
Noise exposure may be influenced by the amount of time sea otters spend at the water's surface. Noise at the water's surface can be attenuated by turbulence from wind and waves more quickly compared to deeper water, reducing potential noise exposure (Greene and Richardson 1988, Richardson et al. 1995). Additionally, turbulence at the water's surface limits the transference of sound from water to air. A sea otter with its head above water will be exposed to only a small fraction of the sound energy traveling through the water beneath it. The average amount of time that sea otters spend above the water each day while resting and grooming varies between males and females and
Sea otter sensitivity to industrial activities may be influenced by the overall level of human activity within the sea otter population's range. In locations that lack frequent human activity, sea otters appear to have a lower threshold for disturbance. Sea otters in Alaska exhibited escape behaviors in response to the presence and approach of vessels (Udevitz et al. 1995). Behaviors included diving or actively swimming away from a vessel, entering the water from haulouts, and disbanding groups with sea otters swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz et al. 1995). Sea otters in Alaska were also observed to avoid areas with heavy boat traffic in the summer and return to these areas during seasons with less vessel traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). In Cook Inlet, sea otters drifting on a tide trajectory that would have taken them within 500 m (0.3 mi) of an active offshore drilling rig were observed to swim in order to avoid a close approach of the drilling rig despite near-ambient noise levels (BlueCrest 2013).
Individual sea otters in Near Island Channel will likely show a range of responses to noise from pile-driving activities. Some sea otters will likely dive, show startle responses, change direction of travel, or prematurely surface. Sea otters reacting to pile-driving activities may divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding and nursing pups. Sea otter responses to disturbance can result in energetic costs, which increases the amount of prey required by sea otters (Barrett 2019). This increased prey consumption may impact sea otter prey availability and cause sea otters to spend more time foraging and less time resting (Barrett 2019). Some sea otters may abandon the project area and return when the disturbance has ceased. Based on the observed movement patterns of sea otters (
The reactions of wildlife to disturbance can range from short-term behavioral changes to long-term impacts that affect survival and reproduction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally (
These examples illustrate direct effects on survival and reproductive success, but disturbances can also have indirect effects. Response to noise disturbance is considered a nonlethal stimulus that is similar to an antipredator response (Frid and Dill 2002). Sea otters are susceptible to predation, particularly from killer whales and eagles, and have a well-developed antipredator response to perceived threats. For example, the presence of a harbor seal (
Although an increase in vigilance or a flight response is nonlethal, a tradeoff occurs between risk avoidance and energy conservation. An animal's reactions to noise disturbance may cause stress and direct an animal's energy away from fitness-enhancing activities such as feeding and mating (Frid and Dill 2002; Goudie and Jones 2004). For example, southern sea otters in areas with heavy recreational boat traffic demonstrated changes in behavioral time budgeting, showing decreased time resting and changes in haulout patterns and distribution (Benham 2006; Maldini et al. 2012). Chronic stress can also lead to weakened reflexes, lowered learning responses (Welch and Welch 1970; van Polanen Petel et al. 2006), compromised immune function, decreased body weight, and abnormal thyroid function (Selye 1979).
Changes in behavior resulting from anthropogenic disturbance can include increased agonistic interactions between individuals or temporary or permanent abandonment of an area (Barton et al. 1998). Additionally, the extent of previous exposure to humans (Holcomb et al. 2009), the type of disturbance (Andersen et al. 2012), and the age or sex of the individuals (Shaughnessy et al. 2008; Holcomb et al. 2009) may influence the type and extent of response in individual sea otters.
Vessel collisions with marine mammals can result in death or serious injury. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus 2001). An animal may be harmed by a vessel when the vessel runs over the animal at the surface, the animal hits the bottom of a vessel while the animal is surfacing, or the animal is cut by a vessel's propeller.
Vessel strike has been documented as a cause of death across all three stocks of northern sea otters in Alaska. Since 2002, the FWS has conducted 1,433 sea otter necropsies to determine cause of death, disease incidence, and the general health status of sea otters in Alaska. Vessel strike or blunt trauma was identified as a definitive or presumptive cause of death in 65 cases
Vessel speed influences the likelihood of vessel strikes involving sea otters. The probability of death or serious injury to a marine mammal increases as vessel speed increases (Laist et al. 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). Sea otters spend a considerable portion of their time at the water's surface (Esslinger et al. 2014). They are typically visually aware of approaching vessels and can move away if a vessel is not traveling too quickly. Mitigation measures to be applied to vessel operations to prevent collisions or interactions are included below in the proposed authorization portion of this document under
Sea otters exhibit behavioral flexibility in response to vessels, and their responses may be influenced by the intensity and duration of the vessel's activity. As noted above, sea otter populations in Alaska were observed to avoid areas with heavy vessel traffic but return to those same areas during seasons with less vessel traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). Sea otters have also shown signs of disturbance or escape behaviors in response to the presence and approach of survey vessels, including sea otters diving and/or actively swimming away from a vessel, sea otters on haulouts entering the water, and groups of sea otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz et al. 1995).
Additionally, sea otter responses to vessels may be influenced by the sea otter's previous experience with vessels. Groups of southern sea otters in two locations in California showed markedly different responses to kayakers approaching to within specific distances, suggesting a different level of tolerance between the groups (Gunvalson 2011). Benham (2006) found evidence that the sea otters exposed to high levels of recreational activity may have become more tolerant than individuals in less-disturbed areas. Sea otters off the California coast showed only mild interest in vessels passing within hundreds of meters and appeared to have habituated to vessel traffic (Riedman 1983; Curland 1997). These findings indicate that sea otters may adjust their responses to vessel activities depending on the level of activity. Vessel activity during the project includes the transit of four barges for materials and construction, all of which will remain on site, mostly stationary, to support the work; additionally, four skiffs will be used during the project for transporting workers short distances to the crane barges. Vessels will not be used extensively or over a long duration during the planned work; therefore, we do not anticipate that sea otters will experience changes in behavior indicative of tolerance or habituation.
Physical and biological features of habitat essential to the conservation of sea otters include the benthic invertebrates that sea otters eat and the shallow rocky areas and kelp beds that provide cover from predators. Sea otter habitat in the project area includes coastal areas within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour where high densities of sea otters have been detected.
Industrial activities, such as pile driving, may generate in-water noise at levels that can temporarily displace sea otters from important habitat and impact sea otter prey species. The primary prey species for sea otters are sea urchins (
Several studies have addressed the effects of noise on invertebrates (Tidau and Briffa 2016; Carroll et al. 2017). Behavioral changes, such as an increase in lobster (
While these studies provide evidence of deleterious effects to invertebrates as a result of increased sound levels, Carroll et al. (2017) caution that there is a wide disparity between results obtained in field and laboratory settings. In experimental settings, changes were observed only when animals were housed in enclosed tanks, and many were exposed to prolonged bouts of continuous, pure tones. We would not expect similar results in open marine conditions. It is unlikely that noises generated by project activities will have any lasting effect on sea otter prey given the short-term duration of sounds produced by each component of the planned work.
Noise-generating activities that interact with the seabed can produce vibrations, resulting in the disturbance of sediment and increased turbidity in the water. Although turbidity is likely to have little impact on sea otters and prey species (Todd et al. 2015), there may be some impacts from vibrations and increased sedimentation. For example, mussels (
The planned specified activities will occur near marine subsistence harvest areas used by Alaska Native Peoples from Kodiak. Between 2013 and 2023, a total of 463 sea otters were taken by hunters from Kodiak. The average annual harvest for this period is 42 animals, with the lowest annual harvest of 10 animals reported in 2018 and the highest annual harvest of 103 animals reported in 2016.
The planned project would occur within the Kodiak city limits, where firearm use is prohibited. The area potentially affected by the planned project does not significantly overlap with current subsistence harvest areas. Construction activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. Despite no conflict with subsistence use being anticipated, the FWS will conduct outreach with potentially affected communities to see whether there are any questions, concerns, or potential conflicts regarding subsistence use in those areas. If any conflicts are identified in the future, Trident will develop a plan of cooperation specifying the steps necessary to minimize any effects the project may have on subsistence harvest.
Below we provide definitions of three potential types of take of sea otters. The FWS does not anticipate and is not authorizing lethal take as a part of this proposed IHA; however, the definitions of these take types are provided for context and background:
The FWS has identified the following sea otter behaviors as indicative of possible Level B harassment:
• Swimming away at a fast pace on belly (
• Repeatedly raising the head vertically above the water to get a better view (
• In the case of a pup, repeatedly spyhopping while hiding behind and holding onto its mother's head;
• Abandoning prey or feeding area;
• Ceasing to nurse and/or rest (applies to dependent pups);
• Ceasing to rest (applies to independent animals);
• Ceasing to use movement corridors;
• Ceasing mating behaviors;
• Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft so that the raft disperses;
• Sudden diving of an entire raft; or
• Flushing animals off a haulout.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other behavioral responses may equate to take by Level B harassment. Relatively minor changes in behavior such as increased vigilance or a short-term change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the FWS does not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by Level B harassment.
We assumed all animals exposed to underwater sound levels that meet the acoustic exposure criteria defined above in
We determined the number of otters expected to be present in Near Island Channel using sightings data collected during work conducted at the Kodiak Ferry terminal between November 2015 and June 2016 (ABR 2016). Sea otters were generally observed in singles or small groups with total daily counts of fewer than ~40 animals. However, there were several days on which rafts of 50 to 200 sea otters were observed with total daily counts of up to 459 animals. Sightings of large rafts and high daily totals coincided with days on which the observers noted higher sea states and it is likely that sea otters came from nearby exposed coastline to seek shelter in Near Island Channel during storm events.
The project can be divided into three major components: DTH drilling, pile driving using a vibratory driver, and vessel use to support construction. Each of these components will generate a different type of in-water noise. Vibratory pile driving and the use of vessels will produce non-impulsive or continuous noise and DTH drilling is considered to produce both impulsive and continuous noise (NMFS 2020). A summary of the sizes and types of piles, installation and removal methods, and time to install and remove piles is shown in table 2.
The level of sound anticipated from each project component was established using recorded data from several sources listed in table 3. We used the NMFS Technical Guidance and User Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018, 2020) to determine the distance at which sound levels would attenuate to Level A harassment thresholds. Empirical data from the proxy projects were used to determine the distance at which sound levels would attenuate to Level B harassment thresholds (table 1). The weighting factor adjustment included in the NMFS user spreadsheet accounts for sounds created in portions of an organism's hearing range where they have less sensitivity. We used the weighting factor adjustment for otariid pinnipeds (eared seals) as they are the closest available physiological and anatomical proxy for sea otters. The spreadsheet also incorporates a transmission loss coefficient, which accounts for the reduction in sound level outward from a sound source. We used the NMFS-recommended transmission loss coefficient of 15 for coastal pile-driving activities to indicate practical spread (NMFS 2020).
We calculated the harassment zones for DTH drilling with input from NMFS. The sound pressure levels produced by DTH drilling were provided by NMFS in 2022 via correspondence with Solstice Alaska Consulting, who created the application for this IHA on behalf of Trident. We then used the NMFS Technical Guidance and User Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018, 2020) to
Sound levels for all sources are unweighted and given in dB re 1 µPa. Non-impulsive sounds are in the form of mean maximum root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) as it is more conservative than cumulative sound exposure level (
We used the ABR Environmental Research & Services (2016) data to derive a local density of sea otters in Near Island Channel on the days of highest presence and arrived at 710 animals per km
To estimate the number of sea otters anticipated in the waters surrounding Near Island Channel during the project, we applied the distribution of daily sea otter counts observed during the Kodiak Ferry work (ABR 2016) to the length of Trident's work period (55 days). We used the result to estimate the daily sea otter counts anticipated during Trident's work period (table 4). The daily count range categories were selected based on natural breaks in the sightings data.
We assumed that the different types of activities could occur either sequentially or concurrently and that the total number of days of work would equal the full 55-day work window. While it is possible that more than one type of activity will take place on some days, which would reduce the number of days of exposure within a year, we cannot know this information in advance. As such, the estimated number of days and, therefore, exposures over the duration of the project are the maximum possible for the planned work.
In order to minimize exposure of sea otters to sounds above Level A harassment thresholds, Trident will implement shutdown zones (appendix C in Solstice 2024) ranging from 10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft), based on the pile size and type of pile driving or marine construction activity, where operations will cease should a sea otter enter or approach the specified zone. Because the shutdown radii are larger than the sound isopleths for Level A harassment, no Level A harassment is anticipated. Soft-start and zone clearance prior to startup will also limit the exposure of sea otters to sound levels that could cause PTS.
We estimate that 3,160 takes of 460 sea otters by Level B harassment may occur due to Trident's planned dock repair and construction activities. In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of take by harassment, several critical assumptions were made.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that indicate harassment or disturbance. There is likely a portion of animals that respond in ways that indicate some level of disturbance but do not experience significant biological consequences.
We used the sea otter presence for the Near Island Channel area from surveys and analyses conducted by ABR, Inc. (2016). Methods and assumptions for these surveys can be found in the original publication. We assumed that the distribution of daily total counts of sea otters during Trident's work period would be similar to that observed during the Kodiak Ferry Terminal work.
We used sound source verification from recent pile-driving activities in a number of locations within and beyond Alaska to generate sound level estimates for construction activities. Environmental conditions in these locations, including water depth, substrate, and ambient sound levels are similar to those in the project location, but not identical. Further, estimation of ensonification zones were based on sound attenuation models using a practical spreading loss model. These factors may lead to actual sound values differing slightly from those estimated here.
We assumed that all piles will be installed and removed while submerged in water. Some piles will be located in the intertidal zone. Work performed at lower tidal heights would likely result in decreased transmission of sounds to
Finally, the pile-driving activities described here will also create in-air noise. Because sea otters spend over half of their day with their heads above water (Esslinger et al. 2014), they will be exposed to an increase of in-air noise from construction equipment. However, we have calculated Level B harassment with the assumption that an individual may be harassed only one time per 24-hour period, and underwater sound levels will be more disturbing and extend farther than in-air noise. Thus, while sea otters may be disturbed by noise both in-air and underwater, we have relied on the more conservative underwater estimates.
The applicant plans to conduct pile driving and marine construction activities in Kodiak, Alaska, over the course of a year from the date of issuance of the IHA. Over the course of the project, we estimate 3,160 instances of take by Level B harassment of 460 northern sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock due to behavioral responses of TTS associated with noise exposure. Although multiple instances of Level B harassment of individual sea otters are expected, these events would not have significant consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals and therefore would not rise to the level of an injury or Level A harassment.
The use of soft-start procedures, zone clearance prior to startup, and shutdown zones (appendix C in Solstice 2024) is anticipated to eliminate both the number of sea otters exposed to sounds above Level A harassment thresholds and the exposure time of any sea otters venturing into a Level A harassment zone. We therefore do not anticipate any losses of hearing sensitivity that might impact the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. We anticipate that PSOs will be able to reliably detect and prevent take by Level A harassment of sea otters beyond the largest sound isopleth for Level A harassment (15 m [45 ft]), therefore we do not anticipate that any sea otters will be exposed to sounds capable of causing PTS or Level A harassment.
Sea otters exposed to sound from the specified activities are likely to respond with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. The specified activities could temporarily interrupt the feeding, resting, and movement of sea otters. Because activities will occur during a limited amount of time and in a localized region, the impacts associated with the project are likewise temporary and localized. The anticipated effects are short-term behavioral reactions and displacement of sea otters near active operations.
Sea otters that encounter the specified activity may exert more energy than otherwise due to temporary cessation of feeding, increased vigilance, and retreating from the project area. We expect that affected sea otters will tolerate this exertion without measurable effects on health or reproduction. The anticipated takes will be due to short-term Level B harassment in the form of TTS, startling reactions, or temporary displacement. The mitigation measures incorporated into Trident's request will eliminate occurrences of Level A harassment to the extent where take by Level A harassment is not anticipated.
With the adoption of the mitigation measures incorporated in Trident's request and required by this proposed IHA, anticipated take was reduced. Those mitigation measures are further described below.
To assess whether the authorized incidental taking would be limited to “small numbers” of marine mammals, the FWS uses a proportional approach that considers whether the estimated number of marine mammals to be subjected to incidental take is small relative to the population size of the species or stock. Here, predicted levels of take were determined based on the estimated density of sea otters in the project area and ensonification zones developed using empirical evidence from similar geographic areas.
We estimate Trident's specified activities in the specified geographic region will result in no more than 3,160 takes of 460 sea otters by Level B harassment during the 1-year period of this proposed IHA (see
We propose a finding that any incidental take by harassment resulting from the specified activities cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the sea otter through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and will, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the Southwest Alaska stock of northern sea otters. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including the biological and behavioral characteristics of the species, the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities, the current and expected future status of the stock (including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the potential responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed applicant-provided materials, information in our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Sea otters are likely to respond to planned activities with temporary behavioral modification or temporary displacement. These reactions are not anticipated to have consequences for the long-term health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure with no lasting consequences. Each sea otter is estimated to be exposed to construction noise for between 4 and 55 days, resulting in repeated exposures. However, injuries (
The total number of animals affected, and severity of impact is not sufficient to change the current population dynamics at the stock scale. Although the specified activities may result in approximately 3,160 incidental takes of 460 sea otters from the Southwest Alaska stock, we do not expect this level of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects on the stock.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the specified activities as mitigated by the avoidance and minimization measures identified in Trident's mitigation and monitoring plan. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to sea otters. These measures, along with the monitoring and reporting procedures, are required for the validity of our finding and are a necessary component of the proposed IHA. For these reasons, we propose a finding that the specified project will have a negligible impact on the Southwest Alaska stock of northern sea otters.
We find that the mitigation measures required by this proposed IHA will affect the least practicable adverse impacts on the stock from any incidental take likely to occur in association with the specified activities. In making this finding, we considered the biological characteristics of sea otters, the nature of the specified activities, the potential effects of the activities on sea otters, the documented impacts of similar activities on sea otters, and alternative mitigation measures.
In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses, we considered the manner and degree to which the successful implementation of the measures are expected to achieve this goal. We considered the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), the likelihood that the measures will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of effective implementation. We also considered the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, Trident will implement mitigation measures, including the following:
• Using the smallest diameter piles practicable while minimizing the overall number of piles;
• Using a project design that does not include dredging or blasting;
• Using pile caps made of high-density polyethylene or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene softening materials during pile driving;
• Foregoing the use of an impact hammer;
• Employing a deep bubble curtain during all DTH drilling to reduce noise impacts;
• Development of a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan;
• Establishment of shutdown and monitoring zones;
• Visual mitigation monitoring by designated PSOs;
• Site clearance before startup;
• Soft-start procedures; and
• Shutdown procedures.
The FWS has not identified any additional (
The project will not preclude access to harvest areas or interfere with the availability of sea otters for harvest. Additionally, the bunkhouse dock and associated facilities are located within the City of Kodiak, where firearm use is prohibited. We therefore propose a finding that Trident's anticipated harassment will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of any stock of northern sea otters for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of the planned activities and the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities in the project area.
The purposes of the monitoring requirements are to document and provide data for assessing the effects of specified activities on sea otters; to ensure that take is consistent with that anticipated in the small numbers, negligible impact, and subsistence use analyses; and to detect any unanticipated effects on the species. Monitoring plans include steps to document when and how sea otters are encountered and their numbers and behaviors during these encounters. This information allows the FWS to measure encounter rates and trends and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected. To the extent possible, monitors will record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration of interaction, and closest approach to the project activity.
As proposed, monitoring activities will be summarized and reported in formal reports. Trident must submit monthly reports for all months during which noise-generating work takes place as well as a final monitoring report that must be submitted no later than 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. We will require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the effects of pile driving and marine construction activities on sea otters prior to issuance of an IHA. We will require approval of the monitoring results for continued operation under the IHA.
We find that these proposed monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of planned activities will ensure that the effects of the activities remain consistent with the rest of the findings.
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Because the Southwest Alaska stock is listed as threatened under the ESA, prior to finalizing the proposed IHA, if warranted, the FWS
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available to Alaska Native people. Our efforts are guided by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the FWS (January 20, 2016);
(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretary's Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) The Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with Alaska Native Tribes and Organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the specified activities on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and Organizations. The FWS has determined that, due to this project's locations and activities, the Tribal Organizations and communities near Kodiak, Alaska, as well as relevant Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, will not be impacted by this project. However, we will inform them of the availability of this proposed IHA and offer them the opportunity to consult. We invite continued discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout the IHA process.
This proposed IHA does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We propose to authorize the nonlethal incidental take by Level B harassment of 3,160 takes of 460 sea otters from the Southwest Alaska stock. Authorized take may be caused by pile driving and marine construction activities conducted by Trident Seafoods Corporation (Trident) in Kodiak, Alaska, over the course of a year from the date of issuance of the IHA. We do not anticipate or authorize any take by Level A harassment or lethal take to sea otters resulting from these activities.
(1) Activities must be conducted in the manner described in the November 6, 2024, revised request from Trident for an IHA and in accordance with all applicable conditions and mitigation measures. The taking of sea otters whenever the required conditions, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are not fully implemented as required by the IHA is prohibited. Failure to follow the measures specified both in the revised request and within this proposed authorization may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of the IHA.
(2) If project activities cause unauthorized take (
(i) Cease its activities immediately (or reduce activities to the minimum level necessary to maintain safety);
(ii) Report the details of the incident to the FWS within 48 hours; and
(iii) Suspend further activities until the FWS has reviewed the circumstances and determined whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking.
(3) All operations managers, vehicle operators, and machine operators must receive a copy of this IHA and maintain access to it for reference at all times during project work. These personnel must understand, be fully aware of, and be capable of implementing the conditions of the IHA at all times during project work.
(4) This IHA will apply to activities associated with the specified project as described in this document and in Trident's revised request. Changes to the specified project without prior authorization may invalidate the IHA.
(5) Trident's revised request is approved and fully incorporated into this IHA unless exceptions are specifically noted herein. The request includes:
(i) Trident's request for an IHA, dated November 6, 2024;
(ii) Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan;
(iii) Bubble curtain schematics; and
(iv) Pile coordinates.
(6) Operators will allow FWS personnel or a FWS-designated representative to visit project worksites to monitor for impacts to sea otters and subsistence uses of sea otters at any time throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so. “Operators” are all personnel operating under Trident's authority, including all contractors and subcontractors.
(1) Construction activities must be conducted using equipment that generates the lowest practicable levels of underwater sound within the range of frequencies audible to sea otters.
(2) If the number of sea otters present in the area of Near Island Channel exceeds 450, or if the number of sea otters present in a Level B monitoring zone exceeds 25, or if the combination of sea state and a high number of sea otters in the area is so high as to preclude an accurate count, work will cease until PSOs can confirm that the number of sea otters in the area is less than above limits.
(3) During all pile-installation activities, regardless of predicted sound levels, a physical interaction shutdown zone of 10 m (33 ft) must be enforced. If a sea otter enters the shutdown zone, in-water activities must be delayed until either the animal has been visually observed outside the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes have elapsed since the last observation time without redetection of the animal. A shutdown zone of 15 m (49 ft) will be enforced for DTH drilling where the 160 dB sound isopleth exceeds the 10 m (33 ft) physical interaction shutdown zone.
(4) In-water activity must be conducted in daylight. If environmental conditions prevent visual detection of sea otters within the shutdown zone, in-water activities must be stopped until visibility is regained.
(5) All in-water work along the shoreline must be conducted during low tide when the site is dewatered to the maximum extent practicable.
Vessel operators must take every precaution to avoid harassment of sea otters when a vessel is operating near these animals. The applicant must carry out the following measures:
(1) Vessels must remain at least 500 m (0.3 mi) from rafts of sea otters unless safety is a factor. Vessels must reduce speed and maintain a distance of 100 m (328 ft) from all sea otters unless safety is a factor.
(2) Vessels must not be operated in such a way as to separate members of a group of sea otters from other members of the group and must avoid alongshore travel in shallow water (<20 m [66 ft]) whenever practicable.
(3) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels must adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to sea otters.
(4) Vessel operators must be provided written guidance for avoiding collisions and minimizing disturbances to sea otters. Guidance will include measures identified in paragraphs (C)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Operators shall work with protected species observers (PSOs) to apply mitigation measures and shall recognize the authority of PSOs up to and including stopping work, except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to personnel.
(2) Duties of the PSOs include watching for and identifying sea otters, recording observation details, documenting presence in any applicable monitoring zone, identifying and documenting potential harassment, and working with operators to implement all appropriate mitigation measures.
(3) A sufficient number of PSOs will be available to meet the following criteria: 100 percent monitoring of exclusion zones during all daytime periods of underwater noise-generating work; a maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; a maximum of approximately 12 hours on watch per day per PSO.
(i) All PSOs will complete a training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. This training will be completed prior to starting work. A field crew leader with prior experience as a sea otter observer will supervise the PSO team. Initially, new or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with experienced PSOs so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for candidate PSOs will be made available for the FWS to review.
(4) Observers will be provided with reticule binoculars (7×50 or better), big-eye binoculars or spotting scopes (30×), inclinometers, and range finders. Field guides, instructional handbooks, maps, and a contact list will also be made available.
(5) Observers will collect data using the following procedures:
(i) All data will be recorded onto a field form or database.
(ii) Global positioning system data, sea state, wind force, and weather will be collected at the beginning and end of a monitoring period, every hour in between, at the change of an observer, and upon sightings of sea otters.
(iii) Observation records of sea otters will include date; time; the observer's locations, heading, and speed (if moving); weather; visibility; number of animals; group size and composition (adults/juveniles); and the location of the animals (or distance and direction from the observer).
(iv) Observation records will also include initial behaviors of the sea otters, descriptions of project activities and underwater sound levels being generated, the position of sea otters relative to applicable monitoring and mitigation zones, any mitigation measures applied, and any apparent reactions to the project activities before and after mitigation.
(v) For all sea otters in or near a mitigation zone, observers will record the distance from the sound source to the sea otter upon initial observation, the duration of the encounter, and the distance at last observation in order to monitor cumulative sound exposures.
(vi) Observers will note any instances of animals lingering close to or traveling with vessels for prolonged periods of time.
(6) Monitoring of the shutdown zone must continue for 30 minutes following completion of pile installation.
Prior to conducting the work, Trident will take the following steps to reduce potential effects on subsistence harvest of sea otters:
(1) Avoid work in areas of known sea otter subsistence harvest;
(2) Discuss the planned activities with subsistence stakeholders including Southwest Alaska villages and traditional councils;
(3) Identify and work to resolve concerns of stakeholders regarding the project's effects on subsistence hunting of sea otters; and
(4) If any concerns remain, develop a POC in consultation with the FWS and subsistence stakeholders to address these concerns.
(1) Trident must notify the FWS at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities.
(i) Monthly reports will be submitted to the FWS's Marine Mammal Management office (MMM) for all months during which noise-generating work takes place. The monthly report will contain and summarize the following information: dates, times, weather, and sea conditions (including the Beaufort Scale sea state and wind force conditions) when sea otters were sighted; the number, location, distance from the sound source, and behavior of the sea otters; the associated project activities; and a description of the implementation and effectiveness of mitigation measures with a discussion of any specific behaviors the sea otters exhibited in response to mitigation.
(2) A final report will be submitted to the FWS's MMM within 90 days after completion of work or expiration of the IHA. The report will include:
(i) A summary of monitoring efforts (hours of monitoring, activities monitored, number of PSOs, and, if requested by the FWS, the daily monitoring logs).
(ii) A description of all project activities, along with any additional work yet to be done. Factors influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals (
(iii) A description of the factors affecting the presence and distribution of sea otters (
(iv) A description of changes in sea otter behavior resulting from project activities and any specific behaviors of interest.
(v) A discussion of the mitigation measures implemented during project activities and their observed effectiveness for minimizing impacts to sea otters. Sea otter observation records will be provided to the FWS in the form of electronic database or spreadsheet files.
(3) Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated with project activities (
(4) All reports shall be submitted by email to
Trident must notify the FWS upon project completion or end of the work season.
If you wish to comment on this proposed authorization, the associated draft environmental assessment, or both documents, you may submit your comments by either of the methods described in
If you submit a comment at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Megan Fry, University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, telephone (352) 273-1921, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the FLMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 429 individuals have been identified from the Palmer Burial Mound/Historic Spanish Point (8SO2/8SO2a), in Sarasota County, Florida. The 1,319 associated funerary objects include pottery fragments, shells, lithics, botanicals, glass, and faunal bone.
Excavations were carried out at the Palmer Burial Mound in 1959, 1960, and 1962 by Ripley P. and Adelaide Bullen of the Florida Museum of Natural History (Bullen and Bullen 1976:35-47). Their report indicates the site is of the Manasota Weeden Island culture dating ca. A.D. 250-750. Accession 4193 included excavations by Ripley P. and Adelaide Bullen in 1959-1960; at least 205 identified Ancestor burials, including burials with multiple individuals co-interred, three dog burials, and cultural belongings. Acc 4336 occurred in 1962 as a continuation of museum excavations of Palmer Burial Mound (8SO2a). This excavation produced at least 143 Ancestor burials, two dog burials, and an alligator burial, and cultural belongings. An additional accession (FM EAP 53), Marquardt and affiliates in 1991, under contract with Archaeological Consultants Incorporated (ACI) and funded by the Spanish Point State Park and a State of Florida Education Grant, excavated at the Palmer Site. However, that excavation did not include burial contexts and there were no Ancestors present. In total, five sites were excavated: (1) Hill Cottage Midden (Archaic 2500-1000 BC), (2) Shell Ridge, (3) Shell Midden (200 BC-A.D. 150), (4) Burial Mound, (5) North Creek Area middens.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to be associated with the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The FLMNH has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 429 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 1,319 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the FLMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The FLMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Krystiana Krupa, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 601 E. John Street, Champaign, IL 61820, telephone (217) 244-2587, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The Conway site (45Sk59), a shell midden located in the Skagit River delta, was excavated as part of salvage projects by the University of Washington in 1969 and 1970. Based on University records, it is unclear how the individuals described in this Notice came to arrive at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. University personnel are not aware of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Tulalip Tribes of Washington; and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program (OSA BP) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the OSA BP and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date, possibly in the 1930s, human remains representing a minimum of one individual were removed from an unknown location near St. Johns in Apache County, AZ. The remains were taken by a resident of Scottsdale, AZ and were later given to the Greene County Historical Society in Jefferson, Iowa. Museum records describe the individual as affiliated with the “Anasazi people in Arizona”. The human remains were transferred to the OSA BP in 2005. The cranial remains represent an adult female, approximately 20 to 35 years old (Burial Project 1942). No associated funerary objects are present. No potentially hazardous substances were used to treat the human remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location and acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The OSA BP has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona; White Mountain Apache of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the OSA BP must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The OSA BP is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Autry Museum of the American West (Southwest Museum Collection) has completed an inventory associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the associated funerary object and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Karimah Richardson, M.Phil., RPA, Associate Curator of Anthropology and Repatriation Supervisor, Autry Museum of the American West, 4700 Western Heritage Way, Los Angeles, CA 90027, telephone (323) 495-4203, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Autry Museum of the American West, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, one associated funerary object has been found to be associated with human remains listed in a Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the associated funerary object described in this notice.
The Autry Museum of the American West has determined that:
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the associated funerary object described in this notice and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the associated funerary object in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Autry Museum of the American West must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 442 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 442 objects of cultural patrimony include flaked and ground stones; faunal and floral remains; modified stone, shell and wood objects; unmodified stones; historic materials; manuports; geologic samples; and pigments. Of this number, at least 10 objects are currently missing from the collections. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for any missing objects. These objects were removed from several sites in Calaveras County in the 1960's and 1970's as the result of various survey and excavation projects carried out near San Domingo Creek, the Stanislaus River, and other locations by California State University, Sacramento students J. Michael McEachern, Louis Payen, Michael Rondeau, and Judy Rose. These sites include CAL-693/H (also known as Murphy's Rancheria), CAL-1073 (also known as the Avery Site), CAL-1256, CAL-1258, CAL-1261, CAL-Dead Horse Flat #1, CAL-Skunk Gulch #1, CAL-Skunk Gulch #2, CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-282), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-283), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-284), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-259), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-262 or 5-262), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-263 or 5-263), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-267 or 5-267), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-270 or 5-270), CAL-Unknown (also known as 4-271 or 5-271), CAL-Unknown (near San Domingo Creek), CAL-Cook Ranch, CAL-Browns Cave, CAL-Unknown (also known as Cal 258), CA-CAL-Vallecito Quarry Site. These objects have since been housed at the California State University, Sacramento under accessions 81-372, 81-342, 81-422, 81-371, 81-376, 81-356, 81-434, 81-431, 81-437, 81-438, 81-439, 81-433, 81-370, 81-373, 81-424, 81-374, 81-423, 81-436, 81-440, 81-435, 81-432, and 81-86.
A total of 79 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 79 objects of cultural patrimony include flaked and ground stones; modified stone and shell objects; faunal remains; historic materials; and baskets. Of this number, at least six objects are currently missing from the collection. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for any missing objects. In 1970's, Mark Grady donated 78 objects to the University's Anthropology Museum from several sites in Calaveras County that include Camanche Dam, Angel's Camp, Avery's Dump, Snowshoe Springs, Winslow Ranch, Murphy's Burial Ground, Fly-in-Acres, and unknown locations in Calaveras County. They have since been housed at the University under accession 1974-18. The estate of Anthony Zallio donated a single basket from an unknown location in Calaveras County to the Anthropology Museum in the 1950's. It has since been housed at the University under accession 1974-29.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The 521 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the California Valley Miwok Tribe, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Mercyhurst University has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Anne Marjenin, Mercyhurst University, 501 East 38th Street, Erie, PA 16546, telephone (814) 824-2012, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Mercyhurst University, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On an unknown date, the individual (TN-DV-TIN-0001) was removed from a location in the vicinity of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee. On an unknown date, the individual was obtained by Raymond C. Vietzen (1907-1995). Vietzen, an avocational archaeologist, collector, and author, established the Indian Ridge Museum in Elyria, Ohio, and the Archaeological Society of Ohio (formerly the Ohio Indian Relic Collectors Society). The Indian Ridge Museum, founded in the 1930s, served as Vietzen's laboratory and repository, and it remained in operation until the mid-1990s. After Vietzen's death, the facility fell into disrepair, and most of the items he had acquired and housed at the museum were sold. In 1998, the Ohio Historical Society (presently the Ohio History Connection) removed ancestral human remains and some of the remaining items from the facility and temporarily housed them at the Ohio Historical Society. In October of 2003, these remains were transferred from the Ohio Historical Society to Mercyhurst College (presently Mercyhurst University).
While there is no record regarding potentially hazardous substances having been used to treat the human remains, an unidentified adhesive is present. It is unknown when the adhesive was applied.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
Mercyhurst University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Shawnee Tribe; The Muscogee (Creek) Nation; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Mercyhurst University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Mercyhurst University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Megon Noble, NAGPRA Project Manager, University of California, Davis, 412 Mrak Hall, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, telephone (530) 752-8501, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of UC Davis, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, five individuals have been identified.
The landfill expanded the waste management pit in 1991. Eleanor Derr of Cultural Resources Unlimited performed a pedestrian field survey and cultural resources study, which uncovered only one piece of ground stone. This ground stone was brought to UC Davis for curation in February 1992. UC Davis Accession 419 is comprised of materials from both the 1981 and 1991 investigations. The University is unaware of any treatment of the associated funerary objects with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the objects or to persons handling the objects.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
UC Davis has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 20 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation of the Cortina Rancheria (
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, UC Davis must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. UC Davis is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Autry Museum of the American West (Southwest Museum Collection) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Karimah Richardson, M.Phil., RPA, Associate Curator of Anthropology and Repatriation Supervisor, Autry Museum of the American West, 4700 Western Heritage Way, Los Angeles, CA 90027, telephone (323) 495-4203, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Autry Museum of the American West, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of three lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The number of unassociated funerary objects is three lots of trade beads. On an unknown date, Mr. Gustave A.L. Heimann collected the cultural items from Concow (Konkow) Cemetery, Yankee Hill, Feather River in Butte County, CA. Mr. Heimann gifted the cultural items in 1959 to the Southwest Museum (now part of Autry Museum of the American West). The Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California (a federally recognized tribe) is claiming cultural affiliation for the unassociated funerary objects on behalf of KonKow Valley Band of Maidu (a non-federally recognized Tribe).
The Autry Museum of the American West has determined that:
• The three lots of unassociated funerary objects described above are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Autry Museum of the American West must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Longyear Museum of Anthropology (LMA) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Kelsey Olney-Wall, Repatriation Manager, Longyear Museum of Anthropology, Colgate University, 13 Oak Drive, Hamilton, NY 13346, telephone (315) 228-7677, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the LMA, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 40 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 40 unassociated funerary objects are shell beads. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, formerly the United States National Museum (USNM) donated the items to the LMA in 1955. The shell beads were removed from the Woodruff Ossuary site (14PH4) in Phillips County, Kansas during a River Basin Survey (RBS) by Marvin F. Kivett in November 1946. The LMA does not have any information regarding the presence of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The LMA has determined that:
• The 40 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the LMA must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The LMA is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, Senior Advisor to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified from an unknown location in Marin County, California. The human remains were likely found in Sausalito, CA. It is not known how they came into Sacramento State's possession, but they have been housed at the University under accession 81-CSUS-197.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Mukwonago Community Library (MCL) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Abby Armour, Mukwonago Community Library, 511 Division Street, Mukwonago, WI 53149, telephone (262) 363-6411, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of MCL, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two unassociated funerary objects are one stone discoidal (G0034) and one banner stone (G00474). The stone discoidal was removed from Erie County, PA and the banner stone was removed from York County, PA. Both were bequeathed to the Mukwonago Community Library by Arthur Grutzmacher, a local collector and dealer, following his death in 1965.
MCL has determined that:
• The two unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, MCL must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. MCL is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento, and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) have completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and have determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and EBMUD, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in their inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 90 individuals were removed from CA-CAL-185 (also known as Camanche Creek Cave), CA-CAL-191 (also known as Cook Ranch #6), CA-CAL-198 (also known as Canal Cave), CA-CAL-217 (also known as Hagar Village), CA-CAL-224 (also known as the Dance House Site or No Name Creek), and CA-CAL-237 (also known as the Old Bridge Site). The 45,740 associated funerary objects removed from these sites include baked clay objects; flaked and ground stones; unmodified stones; historic materials; faunal and floral remains; modified bone, stone, shell, and wood objects; pigments; geologic samples; coprolites; thermally altered rocks; manuports; ash; charcoal samples; unidentified objects; soil samples; and slag. Of this number, at least 807 objects are currently missing from the collections. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for any missing objects. These human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the sites listed above during surveys and excavations conducted in the 1950s and 1960s prior to the inundation of Camanche Reservoir under the direction of California State University, Sacramento faculty and students William Beeson, Jerald Johnson, Louis Payen, William Hansen, and David Boloyan. They have since been housed at the California State University, Sacramento under accession numbers 81-195, 81-429, 81-197, 81-199, 81-425, and 81-194.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD have determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 90 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 45,740 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Los
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Jamey Nye, Los Rios Community College District, 1919 Spanos Court, Arden-Arcade, CA 95825, telephone (916) 568-3031, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of LRCCD, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been reasonably identified. On November 28, 1994, the human remains were found by Public Works employees who were checking the area for storm related debris on Auburn Blvd., Sacramento, California. The coroner's report states that the individuals were found with one square nail, but the one square nail was not removed with the individuals. On March 22, 1995, the Sacramento County Coroner donated the individuals to the Anthropology department at American River College, one of four campuses within LRCCD. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been reasonably identified. On an unknown date, the human remains were removed from the Sacramento area by Jeremiah B. Lillard who was the president of Sacramento Junior College, now Sacramento City College, between 1923 and 1940. Sacramento City College is one of four campuses within LRCCD. In January 2024, the individuals were located in the Sacramento City College Geology department during a campus-wide audit of collections. The individuals were located in a box that was labeled “Series of Indian Jaws: showing development of dentition. Collected from Indian mounds in the vicinity of Sacramento, California. Collection loaned by J.B Lillard”. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual have been reasonably identified. In 2023, the human remains were located on the American River College campus during a campus wide audit of their collections. In consultation with local Tribes, it was determined that the human remains were likely from the Sacramento area. No associated funerary objects are present.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
LRCCD has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, LRCCD must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. LRCCD is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Michigan has completed an inventory of human remains (hereinafter referred to as “Ancestral remains” or “Ancestors”) and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Ben Secunda, NAGPRA Office Managing Director, University of Michigan, Office of Research, Suite G269, Lane Hall, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1274, telephone (734) 615-8936, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of Michigan, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, seven individuals have been identified. The 17 associated funerary objects are one lot of Stiegel glass bottle with metal cap and painted decoration; one lot of pewter vessel fragments; one lot of two brass vessels; one lot of brass ring (from a vessel); one lot of metal nozzle; one lot of Florentine double-barred cross; one lot of chert scraper; one lot of unworked animal bone fragments; one lot of unworked animal bone fragments; one lot of historic ceramic pipe stem/bowl fragment; one lot of brass bracelet; three lots of earthenware sherds; one lot of lithic flake; one lot of bifacially worked stone; and one lot of unworked shell fragment. On July 23rd, 1923, the Ancestral remains and objects were found by workmen on the property of Captain Smith during excavations for a cellar and donated to University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology by one of the workmen. The site is multicomponent without continuous occupation, dating to the Late Historic period A.D. 1772-1820 and Late Late Woodland period A.D. 1200-1400, based on diagnostic artefacts. The Ancestors and associated funerary objects were removed from the Harsen's Island site (20SC2) in St. Clair Co, MI. The Ancestors are one perinate, one child 2-4 years, one juvenile, one adolescent 16-19 years, one adult 22-45 years female, one adult 40+ years male, and one cremated adult.
Ancestral remains representing, at least, 18 individuals have been identified. The 10 associated funerary objects are one lot of unworked antler fragment; one lot of lithic biface; one lot of chert flakes; one lot of unworked quartz pebbles; one lot of fire cracked rock; one lot of cremated and non-cremated faunal bone and shell fragments; two lots of earthenware sherds; one lot of debitage; and one lot of unworked animal bone. In 1963 the Ancestors and associated funerary objects were inadvertently uncovered during sand removal for road construction in Saint Clair County, Michigan, from the Hunter Site (20SC30). At the request of the property owner, the site was then salvage excavated by archaeologists from the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropological Archaeology. Dating for the site is to the Late Woodland A.D. 800-1400, based on diagnostic artifacts from the site. The Ancestors are an adult 30-55 years with osteoarthritis; an infant; an adult 40+ years possible male with osteoarthritis; an adolescent 16-20 years with a possible underlying infection; a child 6-10 years; a child 4-6 years; an adolescent 13-15 years; a child 7.5-12.5 years with a possible underlying infection; an adolescent 14-15 years; a cremated adult 40+ years; a cremated adult; an adult 45+ years; an adult 24-35 years female; an adult; an adult male; an adult possible male with a possible healed fracture, porosity on pelvis, and osteoarthritis; an adult 30+ years possible female with porosity on pelvis; an adolescent 11-17 years with porosity on femora.
The University of Michigan has no record of, nor do its officials have any knowledge of, any treatment of items with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the collection(s) or to persons handling the collection(s).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The University of Michigan has determined that:
• The Ancestral remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 25 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 27 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual Ancestral remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Nation, Oklahoma; Delaware Tribe of Indians; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Michigan must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the Ancestral remains and associated funerary objects
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University (CHM) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Jane Pickering, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) 496-2374, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the CHM, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The two associated funerary objects are two worked bone items, which are under the control of and reported by the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE), in a separate notice. The individuals were removed from a mound in “Dakota,”
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The CHM has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota; Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota; Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the CHM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The CHM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 14 individuals have been identified. The 18,830 associated funerary objects consist of flaked and ground stones; faunal and floral remains; geologic samples; unmodified stones; historic materials; modified bone, shell, stone, and wood objects; pigments; manuports; and thermally altered rocks. Of this number, at least 425 objects are currently missing from the collections. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for any missing objects. These human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from CA-CAL-9, CAL-13, CAL-99, CAL-1255, CAL-1257, and CAL-Cabin Site. They came into the University's possession through surveys and excavations conducted in the 1960s and 1970s by California State University, Sacramento students J. Michael McEachern, Louis Payen, and Judy Rose in Calaveras County near San Domingo Creek and the Stanislaus River. Donations made by landowners from sites in these same areas were also received by the University. These human remains and associated funerary objects have since been housed at the University under accession numbers 81-344, 81-377, 81-352, 81-15, 81-16, 81-369, and 81-17.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 14 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 18,830 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program (OSA BP) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Lara Noldner, Office of the State Archaeologist Bioarchaeology Program, University of Iowa, 700 S Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA 52242, telephone (319) 384-0740, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the OSA BP and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at minimum of one individual were taken from near Prescott, AZ in Yavapai County. The human remains were removed at an unknown time by an unknown individual prior to 1958. In 1958, the remains were transferred to the Sanford Museum and Planetarium in Cherokee, IA by a private citizen who had acquired the human remains from a friend. In January of 2021 the human remains were transferred from the Sanford Museum to OSA BP. The individual is a middle-aged adult male represented by a complete crania and mandible (Burial Project 3560). No associated funerary objects are present. No potentially hazardous substances were used to treat the human remains.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location and acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The OSA BP has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the OSA BP must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The OSA BP is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountain National Park (GRSM) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Charles Sellars, Superintendent, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 107 Park Headquarters Road, Gatlinburg, TN 37738, telephone (865) 8436-1200, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of GRSM and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 4,506 unassociated funerary objects have been requested for repatriation. These include faunal remains and faunal fragments, shell and shell fragments, ceramics and sherds, lithics and lithic fragments, stone and stone tools, beads and bead fragments, ear spools, pipe and pipe fragments, metal knife fragments, metal rings, trade musket fragments, and a chert knife with a provenience of various sites in Haywood, Jackson, and Swain counties, North Carolina (31HW188, 32JK3, 31SW1, 31SW53, 31SW67, 31SW90, 31SW150, 31SW154) and Blount and Sevier counties, Tennessee (40BT8, 40SV127, 40SV126). All the objects were acquired between 1935 and 1942 with the exception of all the objects from 40BT8 which were donated in 1960, and one object collected from private land and donated in 1991. No hazardous substances are known to have been used to treat the cultural items.
GRSM has determined that:
• The 4,506 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Cherokee Nation; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, GRSM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. GRSM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Autry Museum of the American West (Southwest Museum Collection) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Karimah Richardson, M.Phil., RPA, Associate Curator of Anthropology and Repatriation Supervisor, Autry Museum of the American West, 4700 Western Heritage Way, Los Angeles, CA 90027, telephone (323) 495-4203, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Autry Museum of the American West, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Based on the information available, human remains representing, at least, one individual has been reasonably identified. No associated funerary objects are present. In 1941, Mrs. Caroline Gill collected a human cranium from a site near Biggs, in Butte County, Sacramento Valley, CA. Mrs. Gill gifted the cultural item in 1942 to the Southwest Museum (now part of the Autry Museum of the American West). Currently, the human remains are missing/not located. The Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California (federally recognized tribe) is claiming cultural affiliation for the human remains on behalf of KonKow Valley Band of Maidu (a non-federally recognized Tribe).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The Autry Museum of the American West has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Autry Museum of the American West must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Autry Museum of the American West is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Lindsay Busse PQS Principal Investigator, Prehistoric Archaeology, California Department of Transportation, District 4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA 94612, telephone (510) 847-1977, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Caltrans, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 16 individuals have been identified. The
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
Caltrans has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 16 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 12,235 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Caltrans must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. Caltrans is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (PMAE) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Deanna Byrd, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, telephone (617) 384-0672, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the PMAE, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The individual was removed from a hill overlooking the Missouri River in Bismarck, Burleigh County, ND, by George F. Will in 1910 and donated to the PMAE by Will the same year.
Human remains representing, at least, 22 individuals have been identified. The two associated funerary objects are two worked bone items. The individuals and associated funerary objects were removed from a mound in “Dakota,”
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The PMAE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 23 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota;
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the PMAE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The PMAE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Kansas State Historical Society (KSHS) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Nicole Klarmann, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615-1099, telephone (785) 272-8681, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the KSHS, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified from the Taylor Mound site (14DP3) in Doniphan County, KS (UBS 1991-44). The one associated funerary object is a deer tooth. The site sits on a bluff near the Kansas River. An individual excavated part of this site and transferred the remains and funerary object to KSHS in 1914. Future excavations and research by KSU involved radiocarbon dating on charcoal and burned wood and the site was found to be associated with the Middle Woodland period with an average time period of 100 CE. Pottery was also found that showed continued usage of the site into the late prehistoric period (Central Plains Tradition), 1100-1350 CE. To our knowledge, no known hazardous substances were used to treat any of the human remains or associated funerary objects.
Through Tribal consultation, this individual was identified as culturally affiliated with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and Kaw Nation, Oklahoma, based off the following types of information: expert opinion, geographical information, historical information, and oral tradition.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary object described in this notice.
The KSHS has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a reasonable connection between the human remains and associated funerary object described in this notice and the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska and the Kaw Nation, Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the KSHS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The KSHS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Megan Fry, University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611, telephone (352) 273-1921, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the FLMNH, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 13 individuals have been identified from the Casey Key/Synder Site (8SO17), in Sarasota County, Florida. The 80 associated funerary objects include fragmentary pottery, wood, stone, shell, glass, faunal bone, botanicals and soil.
This burial mound and accompanying shell ridge were located along the water's edge. The site was severely disturbed by development and construction. It dates to the Weedon Island period and is believed to have been contemporary with the Palmer Burial Mound site. Ripley P. Bullen and Adelaide K. Bullen visited the site in 1959, learning that the site had been looted by school students who sold the human remains they found sometime in the 1940s and in 1985 Marquardt again assessed the sites history while conducting archaeological reconnaissance on Casey Key, Sarasota, Florida.
The site came to the FLMNH through various accessions. Accession 3923 was collected by Hilton Leech on January 31, 1954, from a shell drift and presented the artifacts to FLMNH. Accession 3942 was again collected by Hilton Leech from a burial mound on August 9, 1955, and presented to the FLMNH. Accession 76-70 was transferred from the University of Florida Department of Anthropology in the summer of 1976. Accession 71-51 was a bulk transfer from the University of Florida Anthropology department. Accession 2000-4 was excavated by William H. Marquardt and Karen Jo Walker at a construction site on Donald Snyder's property on June 18, 1985. The construction firm working on the property was called The Twitchell Group Architects, Sarasota. During the time of excavation, it was unclear if this site was a part of 8SO17 or a separate site, so they named it Snyder Site. It was determined that the site was in fact part of the 8SO17 accession of Casey Key and not a separate site. They returned to the site on September 9 to determine that the site was a part of 8SO17. Accession 2002-63 was first donated to Carlyle Luer, reportedly collected from Casey Key burial mound during the 1950s and in December of 2003, the collection was donated to the FLMNH by George Luer.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to be associated with the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The FLMNH has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 80 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the FLMNH must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The FLMNH is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) intend to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after June 9, 2025.
Dr. Mark Wheeler, Chief of Staff to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, telephone (916) 460-0490, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
The 1,092 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 1,092 objects of cultural patrimony include flaked and ground stones; faunal and flora remains; unmodified stones; historic objects; modified shell, bone, stone and wood objects; thermally altered rocks; soil samples; and unidentified materials. Of this number, at least three objects are currently missing from the collections. California State University, Sacramento continues to look for any missing objects. These objects were removed from several sites in Calaveras County, CA in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of various survey and excavation projects caried out under the direction of California State University, Sacramento faculty and students William Beeson, Jerald Johnson, Louis Payen, William Hansen, and David Boloyan prior to the inundation of Camanche Reservoir. These sites include CAL-105, CAL-186 (also known as Hidden Cave), CAL-188 (also known as Big Cave), CAL-194 (also known as Hole in Rock Cave), CAL-218 (also known as Cemetery One Cave), CAL-219 (also known as Pipe Line #1), CAL-231 (also known as two by four Cave), CAL-Little Creek, and unknown locations. The objects have since been housed at the California State University, Sacramento under accessions 81-427, 81-366, 81-367, 81-196, 81-198, 81-426, 81-428, 81-430, and 1974-30-82e.
The California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD have determined that:
• The 1,092 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the California Valley Miwok Tribe, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after June 9, 2025. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento and EBMUD are responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On March 18, 2025, CoolSeal USA Inc., Perrysburg, Ohio; Inteplast Group Corporation, Livingston, New Jersey; SeaCa Plastic Packaging, Kent, Washington; and Technology Container Corp., Desoto, Texas, filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and LTFV imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam. Accordingly, effective March 18, 2025, the Commission instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-757 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1737-1738 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on May 2, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5622 (May 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty and antidumping and duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-733-736 and 731-TA-1702-1711 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of corrosion-resistant steel products from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, provided for in subheadings 7210.30.00, 7210.41.00, 7210.49.00, 7210.61.00, 7210.69.00, 7210.70.60, 7210.90.10, 7210.90.60, 7210.90.90, 7212.20.00, 7212.30.10, 7212.30.30, 7212.30.50, 7212.40.10, 7212.40.50, 7212.50.00, 7212.60.00, 7215.90.10, 7215.90.30, 7215.90.50, 7217.20.15, 7217.30.15, 7217.90.10, 7217.90.50, 7225.91.00, 7225.92.00, 7225.99.00, 7226.99.01, 7228.60.60, 7228.60.80, and 7229.90.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less-than-fair-value and subsidized by the Governments of Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Vietnam.
April 10, 2025.
Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on August 11, 2025. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on August 11, 2025. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 7) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding the sole respondent in default. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On February 6, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed on behalf of InOvate Acquisition Company of Jupiter, Florida. 90 FR 9084 (Feb. 6, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain dryer wall exhaust vent assemblies and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,230.
On March 14, 2025, the ALJ issued an order directing Xiamen to show cause why it should not be found in default and why judgment should not be rendered against it for failing to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation. Order No. 6 (Mar. 14, 2025). The ALJ found that Xiamen had received notice of the complaint and notice of investigation by express delivery.
On April 15, 2025, the ALJ issued Order No. 7, the subject ID, which found Xiamen, the sole respondent, in default pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16). The ALJ found that because Xiamen failed to respond to the order to show cause, it necessarily failed to make the requisite showing of good cause to avoid default under the applicable rules. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID, and accordingly, Xiamen, the sole respondent has been found in default.
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.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainant is requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to state the date that the Asserted Patent expires, to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. All initial written submissions, from the parties and/or third parties/interested government agencies, and proposed remedial orders from the parties must be filed no later than close of business on May 19, 2025. All reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on May 26, 2025. All submission from third parties and/or interested government agencies are limited to 10 pages. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR
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 vote for this determination took place on May 5, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on April 2, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. of Novato, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain drug products containing C-type natriuretic peptide variants and components thereof by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE48,267 (the “RE'267 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 15-20 and 31-48 of the RE'267 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “a prodrug of CNP, including the drug substance, the linker of the drug substance, and other components, such as the synthetic polymeric group, and vials, prefilled syringes, autoinjectors, or other presentations of TransCon CNP containing the same, for the treatment of achondroplasia”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
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 9, 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: Niki Wiltshire, Personnel Security Division (PSD) 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.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218 Washington, DC 20530.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 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. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 9, 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: Linda Shriver, Acting Unit Chief, Crime and Law Enforcement Statistics Unit, FBI, CJIS Division, Module D-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone: 304-625-4830, email:
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:
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering an application for the subsequent license renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, which authorizes Duke Energy Progress, LLC to operate H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2. The subsequent renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The current license for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, expires on July 31, 2030.
Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by July 7, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0076 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Andrew Siwy, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9232; email:
The NRC received a subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) from Duke Energy Progress, LLC, dated April 1, 2025, requesting subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, which authorizes Duke Energy Progress, LLC to operate H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, up to 2,339 megawatts thermal. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, is located near Hartsville, SC. Duke Energy Progress, LLC submitted the SLRA pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that Duke Energy Progress, LLC has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c), to enable the staff to undertake a review of the SLRA and that, therefore, the SLRA is acceptable for docketing. The current docket number, 50-261, for Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23 will be retained. The determination to accept the SLRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a subsequent renewed license should be issued and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.
Before issuance of the requested subsequent renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a subsequent renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the subsequent renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis and that any changes made to the plant's current licensing basis will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff will prepare an environmental impact statement as a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, Revision 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” dated August 2024 (ADAMS Accession
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b) through (d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Reactor License Renewal section icon at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Monday, May 5, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.
Closed.
On May 5, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to hold and to close to public observation a special meeting in Washington, DC The Board determined that no earlier public notice was practicable. The Board considered the below matters.
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 28, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 28, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 28, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 2, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 30, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 28, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 28, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
GEMX proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
GEMX previously filed a proposed amendment to its ORF, effective as of January 1, 2025,
At this time, the Exchange proposes to discontinue its June 2025 ORF. The Exchange received feedback from Members
To create real ORF reform, moving to a new ORF model that only assesses a fee to transactions that occur on the Exchange would remove any duplicative ORF billing. The Exchange believes that each exchange should likewise adopt a similar model to ensure consistent industry billing of ORF to the benefit of market participants. A consistent methodology of assessing and collecting ORF will also remove confusion and complexity in the billing of ORF. The Exchange has been engaged in remodeling its current ORF over the last year and has held many conversations with market participants to establish a framework that is practical and fair. The Exchange remains committed to ORF reform and will continue to evaluate its ORF model and seek feedback from market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is reasonable because it has come to light that certain information necessary for billing of ORF would not be available later in 2025. In light of this information, the Exchange has been re-evaluating its ORF model and plans to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF, which would be subject to, and described further in, a future rule filing. Particularly, the
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposal would not apply to any Member.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because no Member would be subject to the June 2025 ORF as a result of this proposal.
Additionally, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the NSCC Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become a Member or a Limited Member to obtain and provide a Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) to NSCC as part of its membership application, (ii) each Member and Limited Member to have a current LEI on file with NSCC at all times, (iii) each Sponsoring Member to provide NSCC with an LEI for each of their current Sponsored Members and for each newly added Sponsored Member going forward, and (iv) CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (“CDS”) to provide NSCC with an LEI for each current participant of CDS (“CDS Participant”) for which CDS
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Rules in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become a Member or a Limited Member to obtain and provide a Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) to NSCC as part of its membership application, (ii) each Member and Limited Member to have a current LEI on file with NSCC at all times, (iii) each Sponsoring Member to provide NSCC with an LEI for each of their current Sponsored Members and for each newly added Sponsored Member going forward, and (iv) CDS to provide NSCC with an LEI for each current CDS Participant for which CDS maintains a subaccount at NSCC and for each newly added CDS Participant going forward.
An LEI is a 20-character reference code to uniquely identify legally distinct entities that engage in financial transactions.
LEIs are issued by entities called Local Operating Units (“LOUs”) that are accredited by GLEIF to issue LEIs within certain jurisdictions.
NSCC's parent entity, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”),
NSCC is proposing to add a requirement that its applicants and members obtain and provide an LEI to NSCC similar to the requirement currently in place for its affiliate, FICC, which requires LEIs for members of its Government Securities Division.
• Simplify Operational Processes—LEIs would help simplify and expedite due diligence and know your customer (“KYC”) verification of participants enabling NSCC to do business with participants faster and safer.
• Enhance Risk Management—LEIs provide information about counterparty relationships and hierarchies within and between financial entities, improving counterparty risk assessment and management.
• Leverage Existing Capabilities—The use of LEIs would allow NSCC to leverage existing DTCC technology and data to create automatic upfront validations to support participant onboarding and lifecycle management for NSCC and DTCC's other subsidiaries.
• Reliable Data Source—The LEI system is supported by a trusted method of verifying the identity of the legal entity in question and would provide a reliable data source. This is supported by the LOUs maintenance of all respective reference and identification data and the overall global LEI system which is coordinated and overseen by ROC.
• Reduction in Record Duplication—The use of LEIs would reduce overlap and duplication of data within databases, helps streamline data reconciliations and reduce data errors by decreasing the requirements for manual comparison of different databases.
Implementing an LEI requirement is also intended to improve DTCC's ability to manage data across its subsidiaries, including NSCC. Many participants are shared among NSCC and its affiliates. Currently, there is no consistent requirement for submission of an industry identifier by NSCC and DTCC's other subsidiaries. This has impacted DTCC's ability to profile its subsidiaries' participants quickly and efficiently across all the subsidiaries' products and services. DTCC's other subsidiaries are also implementing an LEI requirement consistent with the LEI requirements being proposed for NSCC.
Based on an analysis by NSCC, approximately 88% of Members, 48% of Limited Members, and 100% of CDS Participants currently have an LEI.
Failure to adhere to the LEI requirement could result in a fine in accordance with the Rules.
In order to add the requirement that participants obtain and provide an LEI, NSCC is proposing to make the following changes.
NSCC would add a new defined term, LEI, to Rule 1. NSCC would use the terminology of the GLEIF for the definition.
NSCC would amend Section 1.C. of Rule 2A to require each NSCC applicant to obtain and provide an LEI to NSCC as part of its membership application.
NSCC would amend Section 2.A. of Rule 2B to require that each Member and Limited Member always has a current LEI on file with NSCC. NSCC would also require CDS to provide NSCC with an LEI for each CDS Participant such that NSCC would have a current LEI for each CDS Participant at all times. NSCC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states that Members, Limited Members and CDS shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit the requisite LEIs. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
NSCC would amend Section 2(g) of Rule 2C to require that each Sponsoring Member submit the LEIs of its Sponsored Member applicants. The proposed rule change would also add language to Section 2(g) of Rule 2C to require that each Sponsoring Member provide NSCC with an LEI for each of its existing Sponsored Members such that NSCC has a current LEI for each such Sponsored Member at all times. NSCC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states such Sponsoring Members shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit LEIs for each of their respective Sponsored Members. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
In order to cover new Sponsored Members, NSCC would amend Section 3(b) of Rule 2C to add that the Sponsoring Member must provide the LEI of each Person it wishes to sponsor into membership as a Sponsored Member.
DTCC is determining a framework relating to the adoption of the selected LEI option across all DTCC subsidiaries and product lines, including an approach to managing the implementation of the LEI requirement for both existing and new clients of NSCC. NSCC would provide notice to existing Members, Limited Members, Sponsoring Members and CDS including by Important Notice, advising them of the LEI requirements for NSCC and notifying them of the dates by which they are expected to have obtained and provided the requisite LEIs to NSCC. NSCC would give Members, Limited Members, Sponsoring Members and CDS that do not currently have the requisite LEIs, 60-calendar days from the date of the notice to obtain and provide the LEIs to NSCC. NSCC considers 60-calendar days to be sufficient for obtaining an LEI, as it can typically be acquired within a few days once the entity provides the necessary entity information to the LOU.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires, that the Rules be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement are consistent with this provision because the proposed revisions would improve the quality of data that is collected from NSCC's participants as well as the process for collecting that data including (i) simplifying and expediting certain operational processes, including due diligence and KYC, by utilizing an efficient and accurate method to verify identity of NSCC participants, (ii) enhancing counterparty risk assessment and management of NSCC participants by improving information about counterparty relationships and hierarchies within and between NSCC participants, (iii) creating efficiencies relating to onboarding and lifecycle management for NSCC and DTCC's other subsidiaries that share participants, (iv) obtaining reliable data from the standardized global LEI system, a dependable source of verified data, and (v) reducing overlap and duplication of data within databases and helping to streamline data reconciliations and reduce data errors. NSCC believes that creating efficiencies in operational processes, onboarding and lifecycle management and improving risk management by improving the quality of verified data that is collected from NSCC's participants as well as the process for collecting that data would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by NSCC. As such, NSCC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement could impose a burden on competition because these changes would impose a cost on firms that currently do not have an LEI to obtain and maintain them. NSCC does not believe that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change would be significant because the cost to obtain and maintain an LEI is relatively small,
NSCC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on
NSCC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 34, FLEX Trading.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 34, FLEX Trading. The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to Options 8, Section 33, Accommodation Transactions.
FLEX Options are customized equity, index, and currency contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options. By way of background, in 2023, the Exchange filed a rule change to amend the manner in which FLEX Options are transacted on Phlx's Trading Floor.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) clarify the Options 8, Section 34 functionality that will be available with the implementation of SR-Phlx-2023-22 and SR-Phx-2024-24; (2) list p.m.-settled FLEX Index Options that expire on or within two business days of a third Friday-of-the-month expiration day for a non-FLEX Option; and (3) permit FLEX Options on certain Exchange-Traded Funds (“ETFs”) to be settled by delivery in cash if the underlying security meets prescribed criteria. Each change will be described below.
First, the Exchange proposes to capitalize certain terms uniformly throughout Options 8, Section 34. The Exchange proposes to capitalize the following terms: “FLEX Options,” “FLEX Equity Options,” “FLEX Index Options,” and “FLEX Currency Options.” The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 34(f)(4) to define FLEX U. S. dollar-settled foreign currency options as “FLEX Currency Options.” The Exchange is also underlying [sic] certain text in Options 8, Section 34(k)(2) that appeared deleted in SR-Phlx-2023-22 due to a missing bracket after the (h).
Second, the Exchange proposes to relocate the exclusion of iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”), the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund; the ARK21Shares Bitcoin ETF, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust BTC, and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF from trading as a FLEX Options from Options 8, Section 34(a) to Options 8, Section 34(e). The language in Options 8, Section 34(a) currently states, “The Exchange will not authorize for trading a FLEX Option on iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund; the ARK21Shares Bitcoin ETF, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust BTC, and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF.” This non-substantive amendment is intended to place the exception in the Permissible Series paragraph for ease of locating any exceptions.
Third, the Exchange proposes to relocate current Options 8, Section 34(f)(1)(B) to (f)(1)(A) and state, “an underlying equity security or index, as applicable (the index multiplier for FLEX Index Options is 100);”. This proposed rule text reflects the current characteristics of underlying interest for FLEX Option. The proposed rule text brings greater clarity to the Rule.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to amend the language in Options 8, Section 34(f)(3) which was initially amended to state, “The Exchange may determine the smallest increment for exercise prices of FLEX Options not to exceed two decimal places.” While not substantively amending the exercise price, the Exchange proposes to amend this sentence to state, “The Exchange may determine the smallest increment for exercise prices of FLEX Options on a class-by-class basis without going lower than the $0.01.” The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text brings greater clarity to Phlx's rule text and is consistent with rule text in Cboe Rule 5.3(e)(3).
Fifth, the Exchange proposes to amend the language in Options 8, Section 34(f)(5) to provide, “The expiration date may be any business day (specified to the day, month, and year) no more than 15 years from the date on which an executed FLEX equity and index option is submitted to the System and no more than 3 years from the date on which an executed FLEX currency option is submitted to the System with exercise settlement value on the expiration date determined by reference
Sixth, the Exchange proposes to re-style Options 8, Section 34(f)(6) to change the title from “Settlement” to “Settlement type.” The Exchange also proposes to add a title at (A), “FLEX Equity Options.” At proposed Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(1) the Exchange proposes to add rule text to state, “FLEX Equity Options, other than as permitted in subparagraph (2) below, are settled with physical delivery of the underlying security.” The Exchange proposes to also introduce FLEX Equity Options that are cash-settled in proposed Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(2). The Exchange will discuss cash-settled FLEX Equity Options in greater detail below.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(B) to add a title for FLEX Index Options at (B) and change the current rule text
(1) close with exercise settlement value determined by reference to the reported level of the index derived from the reported closing prices of the component securities (“P.M.-settled”);
(2) opening of trading on the Exchange with exercise settlement value determined by reference to the reported level of the index derived from the reported opening prices of the component securities (“A.M.-settled”).
While not substantively amending the rule text, the Exchange believes that the proposed text adds clarity by noting how the exercise value is determined depending on whether the option is a.m.-settled or p.m.-settled. The Exchange proposes to add a title “FLEX Currency Options” to new Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(C). The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to underline “Market Maker” in Options 8, Section 34(g)(3). SR-Phlx-2023-22 inadvertently did not underline that text, thereby designating it as new text. The Exchange proposes to remove the following rule text currently in Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(B), “American style index options exercised prior to the expiration date can only settle based on the closing value on the exercise date.” This language is not necessary as American Style Options are defined in Options 1, Section 1(b)(3) to mean an option contract that may be exercised at any time from its commencement until its expiration. The definition is not needed in this rule. The Exchange also relocated the rule text in Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(B) that stated, “FLEX index options are settled in U.S. dollar” to the beginning of that section.
Seventh, the Exchange proposes to amend Position Limits in Options 8, Section 34(i) to add a new paragraph stating that,
There shall be no position limits for FLEX Equity Options, other than as set forth in this paragraph and (4) below. Position limits for FLEX Equity Options where the underlying security is an ETF that is settled in cash pursuant to subparagraph (f)(6)(A) shall be subject to the position limits set forth in Options 9, Section 13, and subject to the exercise limits set forth in Options 9, Section 15. Positions in such cash-settled FLEX Options shall be aggregated with positions in physically-settled non-FLEX options on the same underlying ETF for the purpose of calculating the position limits set forth in Options 9, Section 13, and the exercise limits set forth in Options 9, Section 15.
The Exchange will describe position limits for cash-settled FLEX Equity Options on an ETF below with the description of its proposal to permit a cash-settled ETF.
The Exchange proposes to remove certain numbering as unnecessary in proposed Options 8, Section 34(i)(2), which is currently Options 8, Section 34(i)(1). The Exchange would create a new Options 8, Section 34(i)(2) and title it “Reports.” The Exchange would remove “However” from this new paragraph and start the paragraph with “Each.”
The Exchange proposes to add the title “Additional Margin Requirements” to proposed Options 8, Section 34(i)(3).
The Exchange proposes to amend proposed Options 8, Section 34(i)(3), current Options 8, Section 34(i)(3), by renumbering it to “(4)” and adding a title “Aggregation of FLEX Positions.” Further, the Exchange proposes to note that, “For purposes of the position limits and reporting requirements set forth in this Rule, FLEX Option positions shall not be aggregated with positions in non-FLEX Options other than as noted in this subparagraphs (i)(1) and (i)(4)(a)-(c), and positions in FLEX Index Options on a given index shall not be aggregated with options on any stocks included in the index or with FLEX Index Option positions on another index.”
Eighth, the Exchange proposes to amend Exercise Limits in Options 8, Section 34(j) to provide further detail and rearrange the rule text. The Exchange proposes to relocate the rule text in Options 8, Section 34(j)(1) that provides, “Positions in FLEX options shall not be taken into account when calculating exercise limits for non-FLEX options, except as provided in paragraph (d) above. The minimum exercise size shall be the lesser of $1 million underlying equivalent value for FLEX index options, and 25 contracts for FLEX equity and currency options, or the remaining size of the position.” Instead, the Exchange proposes to provide at Options 8, Section 34(j)(1)(a) that, “The minimum value size for FLEX Equity Options and FLEX Currency Options exercises shall be 25 contracts or the remaining size of the position, whichever is less.” Proposed Options 8, Section 34(j)(1)(b) will require that the minimum value size for FLEX Index Options exercises be $1 million Underlying Equivalent Value (as defined below) or the remaining Underlying Equivalent Value of the position, whichever is less.
The Exchange also proposes to make a technical amendment to Options 8, Section 33, Accommodation Transactions, at paragraph (e) to remove correct improperly placed parentheticals from SR-Phlx-2024-22.
Generally, FLEX Equity Options will be settled by physical delivery of the underlying security,
The Exchange proposes rule text in Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(2) to provide that for FLEX Equity Options with an underlying security that is an ETF that has an average daily notional value of $500 million or more and a national average daily volume of at least 4,680,000 shares,
The Exchange also proposes in Options 8, Section 34(f) that a FLEX Equity Option overlying an ETF (cash- or physically-settled) may not be the same type (put or call) and may not have the same exercise style, expiration date, and exercise price as a non-FLEX Equity Option overlying the same ETF.
In addition, the Exchange proposes new Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(2)(a), which would provide that the Exchange will determine bi-annually the underlying ETFs that satisfy the notional value and trading volume requirements in subparagraph (2) by using trading statistics for the previous six-month period.
Proposed new Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(2)(b) would further provide that if the Exchange determines pursuant to the review conducted under paragraph (2)(a) of this Rule that an underlying ETF ceases to satisfy the criteria in subparagraph (2)(a) of this Rule, any new position overlying such ETF entered into will be required to have exercise settlement by physical delivery and any open cash-settled FLEX ETF Option positions may be traded only to close the position.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to introduce cash settlement as an alternative contract term to the select group of ETFs because they are among the most highly liquid and actively traded ETF securities. As described more fully below, the Exchange believes that the deep liquidity and robust trading activity in the ETFs identified by the Exchange as meeting the criteria mitigate against historic concerns regarding susceptibility to manipulation.
ETFs are funds that have their value derived from assets owned. The net asset value (“NAV”) of an ETF is a daily calculation that is based off the most recent closing prices of the assets in the fund and an actual accounting of the total cash in the fund at the time of calculation. The NAV of an ETF is calculated by taking the sum of the assets in the fund, including any securities and cash, subtracting out any liabilities, and dividing that by the number of shares outstanding.
Additionally, each ETF is subject to a creation and redemption mechanism to ensure the price of the ETF does not fluctuate too far away from its NAV—which mechanisms the Exchange believes reduce the potential for manipulative activity. Each business day, ETFs are required to make publicly available a portfolio composition file that describes the makeup of their creation and redemption “baskets” (
The principal, and perhaps most important, feature of ETFs is their reliance on an “arbitrage function” performed by market participants that influences the supply and demand of ETF shares and, thus, trading prices relative to NAV. As noted above, new ETF shares can be created and existing shares redeemed based on investor demand; thus, ETF supply is open-ended. This arbitrage function helps to keep an ETF's price in line with the value of its underlying portfolio,
The Exchange believes that average daily notional value is an appropriate proxy for selecting underlying securities that are not readily susceptible to manipulation for purposes of establishing a settlement price. Average daily notional value considers both the trading activity and the price of an underlying security. As a general matter, the more expensive an underlying security's price, the less cost-effective manipulation could become. Further, manipulation of the price of a security encounters greater difficulty the more volume that is traded. To calculate average daily notional value (provided in the table below), the Exchange summed the notional value of each trade for each symbol (
Further, the Exchange proposes that qualifying ETFs also meet an ADV standard. The purpose for this second criteria is to prevent unusually expensive underlying securities from qualifying under the average daily notional value standard while not being one of the most actively traded securities. The Exchange believes an ADV requirement of 4,680,000 shares a day is appropriate because it represents average trading in the underlying ETF of 200 shares per second. While no security is immune from all manipulation, the Exchange believes that the combination of average daily notional value and ADV as prerequisite requirements would limit cash
The Exchange believes that the proposed objective criteria would ensure that only the most robustly traded and deeply liquid ETFs would qualify to have cash settlement as a contract term. As provided in the table below, from June 1, 2024 through January 1, 2025, the Exchange would be able to provide cash settlement as a contract term for FLEX ETF Options on 43 underlying ETFs, as only this group of securities would currently meet the requirement of $500 million or more average daily notional value and a minimum ADV of 4,680,000 shares. The table below provides the list of the 43 ETFs that, for the period covering June 1, 2024 through January 1, 2025, would be eligible to have cash settlement as a contract term.
The Exchange believes that permitting cash settlement as a contract term for FLEX ETF Options for the ETFs in the above table would broaden the base of
The Exchange notes that the SEC has previously approved a rule filing of another exchange that allowed for the trading of cash-settled options
Today, equity options are settled physically at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”),
With respect to position and exercise limits, cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would be subject to the position limits set forth in proposed Options 8, Section 34(i). Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add Options 8, Section 34(i)(1), which would provide that position limits for cash-settled FLEX Equity Options where the underlying security is an ETF pursuant to Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(A)(2) shall be subject to the position limits set forth in Options 9, Section 13, and subject to the exercise limits set forth in Options 9, Section 15.
The Exchange understands that cash-settled ETF options are currently traded in the OTC market by a variety of market participants,
In the Exchange's view, cash-settled FLEX ETF Options traded on the Exchange would have three important advantages over the contracts that are traded in the OTC market. First, as a result of greater standardization of contract terms, exchange-traded contracts should develop more liquidity. Second, counter-party credit risk would be mitigated by the fact that the contracts are issued and guaranteed by OCC. Finally, the price discovery and dissemination provided by the Exchange and its members would lead to more transparent markets. The Exchange believes that its ability to offer cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would aid it in competing with the OTC market and at the same time expand the universe of products available to interested market participants. The Exchange believes that an exchange-traded alternative may provide a useful risk management and trading vehicle for market participants and their customers. Further, the Exchange believes listing cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would provide investors with competition on an exchange platform, as other options exchanges have received Commission approval to list the same options.
The Exchange notes that OCC has received approval from the Commission for rule changes that will accommodate the clearance and settlement of cash-settled ETF options.
The Exchange does not believe that allowing cash settlement as a contract term would render the marketplace for equity options more susceptible to manipulative practices. The Exchange believes that manipulating the settlement price of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would be difficult based on the size of the market for the underlying ETFs that are the subject of this proposed rule change. The Exchange notes that each underlying ETF in the table above is sufficiently active to alleviate concerns about potential manipulative activity. Further, in the Exchange's view, the vast liquidity in the 43 underlying ETFs that would currently be eligible to be traded as cash-settled FLEX options under the proposal ensures a multitude of market participants at any given time. Moreover, given the high level of participation among market participants that enter quotes and/or orders in physically settled options on these ETFs, the Exchange believes it would be very difficult for a single participant to alter the price of the underlying ETF or options overlying such ETF in any significant way without exposing the would-be manipulator to regulatory scrutiny. The Exchange further believes any attempt to manipulate the price of the underlying ETF or options overlying such ETF would also be cost prohibitive. As a result, the Exchange believes there is significant participation among market participants to prevent manipulation of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options.
Still, the Exchange believes it has an adequate surveillance program in place and intends to apply the same program procedures to cash-settled FLEX ETF Options that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
With respect to regulatory scrutiny, the Exchange believes its existing surveillance technologies and procedures adequately address potential concerns regarding possible manipulation of the settlement value at or near the close of the market. The Exchange notes that the regulatory program operated by and overseen by Phlx
Additionally, for options, the Exchange utilizes an array of patterns that monitor manipulation of options, or manipulation of equity securities (regardless of venue) for the purpose of impacting options prices on the Exchange (
In addition to the surveillance procedures and processes described above, improvements in audit trails (
The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking to effect cash-settled FLEX ETF Options with the opportunity for a different method of settling option contracts at expiration if they choose to do so. As noted above, market participants may choose cash settlement because physical settlement possesses certain risks with respect to volatility and movement of the underlying security at expiration that market participants may need to hedge against. The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to members' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products for reasons that are generally debated in academic literature. The Exchange believes that introducing cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options, where settlement restrictions do not apply. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage market makers to shift liquidity from the OTC market onto the Exchange, which, it believes, would enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange also believes that this may open up cash-settled FLEX ETF Options to more retail investors. The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change raises any unique regulatory concerns because existing safeguards—such as position limits (and the aggregation of cash-settled positions with physically-settled positions), exercise limits (and the aggregation of cash-settled positions with physically-settled positions), and reporting requirements—would continue to apply. The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits may further help mitigate the concerns that the limits are designed to address about the potential for manipulation and market disruption in the options and the underlying securities.
Given the novel characteristics of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options, the Exchange will conduct a review of the trading in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options over an initial five-year period. The Exchange will furnish five reports to the Commission based on this review, the first of which would be provided within 60 days after the first anniversary of the initial listing date of the first cash-settled FLEX ETF Option under the proposed rule and each subsequent annual report to be provided within 60 days after the second, third, fourth and fifth anniversary of such initial listing. At a minimum, each report will provide a comparison between the trading volume of all cash-settled FLEX ETF Options listed under the proposed rule and physically settled options on the same underlying security, the liquidity of the market for such options products and the underlying ETF, and any manipulation concerns arising in connection with the trading of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options under the proposed rule. The Exchange will also provide additional data as requested by the Commission during this five year period. The reports will also discuss any recommendations the Exchange may have for enhancements to the listing standards based on its review. The Exchange believes these reports will allow the Commission and the Exchange to evaluate, among other things, the impact such options have, and any potential adverse effects, on price volatility and the market for the underlying ETFs, the component securities underlying the ETFs, and the options on the same underlying ETFs and make appropriate recommendations, if any, in response to the reports.
The Exchange will implement this rule change on or before December 20, 2025. Phlx would commence its implementation with a limited symbol migration and continue to migrate symbols over several weeks. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert to member organizations to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates.
The Exchange will announce the implementation dates to member organizations in an Options Trader Alert.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to not authorize for trading a FLEX Option on iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”) is consistent with ISE's Approval Order of iShares Bitcoin Trust.
The Exchange's proposal to provide in Options 8, Section 34(f)(1)(B) that, “an underlying equity security or index, as applicable (the index multiplier for FLEX Index Options is 100)” is consistent with the Act and will protect investors and the general public because this rule text adds transparency to the current characteristics of underlying interest for FLEX Option.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 34(f)(3) to provide that, “The Exchange may determine the smallest increment for exercise prices of FLEX Options on a class-by-class basis without going lower than the $0.01.” is consistent with the Act and will protect investors and the general public because this rule text provides clear, transparent language regarding the minimum trading increments for FLEX Options. The language is consistent with Cboe Rule 5.3(e)(3) except the Exchange is not proposing to provide for Micro FLEX Index Options or to allow prices to be expressed as a percentage value because the Exchange does not offer these features today. Also, this rule text is identical to ISE Options 3A, Section 3(c)(6).
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 34(f)(5) to allow the listing of FLEX PM Third Friday Options, is consistent with the Commission's recent approval of Cboe's proposal to make its pilot a permanent program.
The Exchange further believes that permitting Phlx to list FLEX PM Third Friday Options, similar to Cboe, will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and protect investors, while maintaining a fair and orderly market. As described in the FLEX Settlement Pilot Approval, Cboe observed no significant adverse market impact or identified any meaningful regulatory concerns during the nearly 14-year operation of the FLEX PM Third Friday Program as a pilot nor during the 15 years since P.M.-settled index options (SPX) were reintroduced to the marketplace.
As discussed in the FLEX Settlement Pilot Approval, the DERA staff study
Cboe also concluded that the introduction of FLEX PM options had no significant impact on the market quality of corresponding a.m.-settled options or other options. As discussed in the FLEX Settlement Pilot Approval, Cboe's analysis conducted after the introduction of SPXW options with Tuesday and Thursday expirations demonstrated no statistically significant impact on the bid-ask or effective
Additionally, Cboe noted that the significant changes in the closing procedures of the primary markets in recent decades, including considerable advances in trading systems and technology, has significantly minimized risks of any potential impact of FLEX PM Third Friday Options on the underlying cash markets. As such, Cboe concluded that listing FLEX PM Third Friday Options did not raise any unique or prohibitive regulatory concerns and that such trading has not, and will not, adversely impact fair and orderly markets on expiration Fridays for the underlying indexes or their component securities.
The Exchange notes that p.m.-settled options were previously approved on Phlx's standard market,
In support of its proposal to list p.m.-settled third-Friday-of-the-month expirations for NDX and XND options on its standard market, the Exchange pointed to, among other things, the data it provided underlying the P.M.-Settled Pilot Permanency Approval.
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 8, Section 34(f)(6)(B) to note the settlement style for FLEX Index Options depending on whether it is a.m.-settled or p.m.-settled is consistent with the Act and will protect investors and the general public because this rule text adds transparency to the current settlement of FLEX Index Options.
Position and exercise limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. While position and exercise limits should address and discourage the potential for manipulative schemes and
As it relates to FLEX Index Options, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to position and exercise limits in Options 8, Section 34(i) and (j) are reasonably designed to prevent a member organization from using FLEX Index Options to evade the position limits applicable to comparable non-FLEX Index Options. Further, by establishing the proposed position and exercise limits for FLEX Index Options and, importantly, aggregating such positions in the manner described in proposed Options 8, Section 34(i)(4) the Exchange believes that the position and exercise limit requirements for FLEX Index Options should help to ensure that the trading of FLEX Index Options would not increase the potential for manipulation or market disruption and could help to minimize such incentives. The Exchange also notes that proposed position and exercise limits are consistent with the rules of other options exchanges that offer FLEX Index Options, as well as the rules of its own standard non-FLEX index options market, and therefore raise no novel issues for the Commission.
As it relates to FLEX Equity Options, while no position limits are proposed for FLEX Equity Options, there are several mitigating factors, which include aggregation of FLEX Equity Option and non-FLEX Equity Option positions that expire on a third Friday-of-the-month and subjecting those positions to position and exercise limits, and daily monitoring of market activity. Similar to the other exchanges that trade FLEX Equity Options, the Exchange believes that eliminating position and exercise limits for FLEX Equity Options, while requiring positions in FLEX Equity Options that expire on a third Friday-of-the-month to be aggregated with positions in non-FLEX Equity Options on the same underlying security,
The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of position and exercise limits for FLEX Equity Options may encourage market participants to transfer their liquidity demands from OTC markets to exchanges and enable liquidity providers to provide additional liquidity to Phlx through transactions in FLEX Equity Options. The Exchange notes that the Commission previously approved the elimination of position and exercise limits for FLEX Equity Options, finding that such elimination would allow exchanges “to better compete with the growing OTC market in customized equity options, thereby encouraging fair competition among brokers and dealers and exchange markets.”
Additionally, the Exchange believes that requiring positions in FLEX Equity Options that expire on a third Friday-of-the-month to be aggregated with positions in non-FLEX Equity Options on the same underlying security subjects FLEX Equity Options and non-FLEX Equity Options to the same position and exercise limits on third Friday-of-the-month expirations. These limitations are intended to serve as a safeguard against potential adverse effects of large FLEX Equity Option positions expiring on the same day as non-FLEX Equity Option positions. As noted above, Cboe Rules 8.35(d)(3) and 8.42(g)(3) have the same requirements. Also, ISE Options 3A, Section 18(c)(1) has identical rule text.
The Exchange believes that any potential risk of manipulative activity is mitigated by existing surveillance technologies, procedures, and reporting requirements at the Exchange, which allows the Exchange to properly identify disruptive and/or manipulative trading activity. In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange also works with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues. Through its participation in ISG, the Exchange shares information and coordinates inquiries and investigations with other exchanges designed to address potential intermarket manipulation and trading abuses. The Exchange also notes that FINRA conducts cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that other exchanges currently trading FLEX options have similar position and exercise limits described above.
Introducing cash-settled FLEX ETF Options will increase order flow to the Exchange, increase the variety of options products available for trading, and provide a valuable tool for investors to manage risk.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit cash settlement as a contract term for options on the specified group of equity securities would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would enable market participants to receive cash in lieu of shares of the underlying security, which would, in turn provide greater opportunities for market participants to manage risk through the use of a cash-settled product to the benefit of investors and the public interest. The Exchange does not believe that allowing cash settlement as a contract term for options on the specified group of equity
The Exchange believes the proposed change that, for FLEX ETF Options, at least one of exercise style, expiration date, and exercise price must differ from options in the non-FLEX market will provide clarity and eliminate confusion regarding permissible terms of FLEX ETF Options, including the proposed cash-settled FLEX ETF Options.
The Exchange believes that the data provided by the Exchange supports the supposition that permitting cash settlement as a FLEX term for the 43 underlying ETFs that would currently qualify to have cash settlement as a contract term would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options, where settlement restrictions do not apply.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit cash settlement for certain FLEX ETF options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because the proposed rule change would provide members and member organizations with enhanced methods to manage risk by receiving cash if they choose to do so instead of the underlying security. In addition, this proposal would promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the general public because cash settlement would provide investors with an additional tool to manage their risk. Further, the Exchange notes that another exchange has previously received approval that allows for the trading of cash-settled options, and, specifically, cash-settled FLEX ETF Options in an identical manner as the Exchange proposes to list them pursuant to this rule filing.
The proposed rule change to permit cash settlement as a contract term for options on up to 50 ETFs is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade in that the availability of cash settlement as a contract term would give market participants an alternative to trading similar products in the OTC market. By trading a product in an exchange-traded environment (that is currently traded in the OTC market), the Exchange would be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that it would lead to the migration of options currently trading in the OTC market to trading on the Exchange. Also, any migration to the Exchange from the OTC market would result in increased market transparency. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of the proposed cash-settled options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently available for trading only in the OTC market and are approved to trade on another options exchange.
The Exchange believes that establishing position limits for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options to be the same as physically settled options on the same underlying security, and aggregating positions in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options with physically settled options on the same underlying security for purposes of calculating position limits is reasonable and consistent with the Act. By establishing the same position limits for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options as for physically settled options on the same underlying security and, importantly, aggregating such positions, the Exchange believes that the position limit requirements for cash-settled FLEX ETF Options should help to ensure that the trading of cash-settled FLEX ETF Options would not increase the potential for manipulation or market disruption and could help to minimize such incentives. For the same reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed exercise limits are reasonable and consistent with the Act.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options and the underlying ETFs. Regarding the proposed cash settlement, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's other FLEX Options. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying ETFs. The Exchange believes that limiting cash settlement to no more than 50 underlying ETFs (currently, 43 ETFs would be eligible to have cash-settlement as a contract term) would minimize the possibility of manipulation due to the robust liquidity in both the equities and options markets.
As a self-regulatory organization, the Exchange recognizes the importance of surveillance, among other things, to detect and deter fraudulent and manipulative trading activity as well as other violations of Exchange rules and the federal securities laws. As discussed above, Phlx has adequate surveillance procedures in place to monitor trading in cash-settled FLEX ETF Options and the underlying securities, including to detect manipulative trading activity in both the options and the underlying ETF.
Additionally, the Exchange will monitor any effect additional options series listed under the proposed rule change may have on market fragmentation and the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems. The Exchange will take prompt action, including timely communication with the Commission and with other self-regulatory organizations responsible for oversight of trading in options, the underlying ETFs, and the ETFs' component securities, should any unanticipated adverse market effects develop.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as all member organizations who wish to trade FLEX Options will be able to trade such options in the same manner. Additionally, positions in FLEX Options of all member organizations will be subject to the same position limits, and such positions will be aggregated in the same manner as described in proposed Options 8, Section 34(i)(4).
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal promotes inter-market competition by providing another alternative (
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-Phlx-2025-20 and should be submitted on or before May 29, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to update its Fees Schedule in connection with the Exchange's plans to list and trade options that overlie the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index (“SPEQX options”); specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain standard transaction fees in connection with SPEQX options, include/exclude SPEQX options from certain surcharges, exclude SPEQX options from certain fees programs, and adopt a SPEQX LMM Incentive Program. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with its plans to list and trade options that overlie the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index (“SPEQX options”).
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to accommodate the planned listing and trading of SPEQX options.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt certain standard transaction fees in connection with SPEQX options. Specifically, the proposed rule change adopts certain fees for SPEQX options in the Rate Table for All Products Excluding Underlying Symbol A,
• Adopts fee code E1, appended to all Customer (capacity “C”) orders in SPEQX options and assesses a fee of $0.05 per contract;
• Adopts fee code E2, which is appended to all non-Customer (
In addition to the above transaction fees, the proposed rule change also adopts a surcharge to SPEQX options transactions within the Rate Table—All Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A. Specifically, the proposed rule change adds SPEQX options to the list of options for which the FLEX Surcharge Fee of $0.10 (capped at $250 per trade) applies to electronic FLEX orders executed by all capacity codes, except for Cboe Compression Services (“CCS”) and FLEX Micro transactions.
The Exchange also proposes to exclude non-Customer complex orders in SPEQX from the Complex Surcharge by amending Footnote 35 (appended to the Complex Surcharge) to provide that the Complex Surcharge applies per contract per side surcharge for noncustomer complex order executions that remove liquidity from the Complex Order Book (“COB”) and auction responses in the Complex Order Auction (“COA”) and AIM in all classes
The Exchange proposes to exclude SPEQX options from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, which offers credits on Market-Maker orders where a Market-Maker achieves certain volume thresholds based on total national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols, excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, XSP and FLEX Micros during the calendar month. Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale table to provide that volume thresholds are based on total national Market-Maker volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP and FLEX Micros during the calendar month, and that it applies in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP and FLEX Micros. The proposed rule change also updates Footnote 10 (appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale) to provide that the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale applies to Liquidity Provider (Exchange Market-Maker, DPM and LMM) transaction fees in all products except (1) Underlying Symbol List A, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP and FLEX Micros, (2) volume executed in open outcry, and (3) volume executed via AIM Responses.
The proposed rule change also updates Footnote 44 (appended to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table) to exclude SPEQX volume from the program by providing (in relevant part) that the Make Rate under the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table be derived from a Liquidity Provider's electronic volume the previous month in all symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, CBTX, MBTX, SPEQX, and XSP.
The proposed rule change updates the Volume Incentive Program (“VIP”) table to also exclude SPEQX volume from the VIP, which currently offers a per contract credit for certain percentage threshold levels of monthly Customer volume in all underlying symbols, excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, XSP and FLEX Micros. The proposed rule change also amends Footnote 36 (appended to the VIP table) to reflect the proposed exclusion of SPEQX from the VIP by providing (in relevant part) that: the Exchange shall credit each TPH the per contract amount resulting from each public customer (“C” capacity code) order transmitted by that TPH which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP, FLEX Micros, QCC trades, public customer to public customer electronic complex order executions, and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in Rule 5.67, provided the Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Volume Incentive Program (VIP) table; the percentage thresholds are calculated based on the percentage of national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, DJX, XSP and FLEX Micros entered and executed over the course of the month; and in the event of a Cboe Options System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on Cboe Options, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, DJX, XSP and FLEX Micros for the entire trading day.
The proposed rule change excludes SPEQX options from the list of products eligible to receive Break-Up Credits in orders executed in AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM, and FLEX SAM, by amending the Break-Up Credits table to exclude SPEQX along with the products currently excluded—Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, XSP and FLEX Micros.
The Exchange proposes to exclude SPEQX options from the Marketing Fee Program by updating the Marketing Fee table to provide that the marketing fee will be assessed on transactions of Market-Makers (including DPMs and LMMs), resulting from customer orders at the per contract rate provided above on all classes of equity options, options on ETFs, options on ETNs and index options, except that the marketing fee shall not apply to Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, XSP, SPEQX, NANOS, FLEX Micros or Underlying Symbol List A. The Exchange notes that, in this way, SPEQX options will be treated as most of the Exchange's other exclusively listed products that are currently excluded from the Marketing Fee Program. The Exchange does believe that it is necessary at the point of newly listing and trading for SPEQX options to be eligible for the Marketing Fee Program and may determine in the future to submit a fee filing to add SPEQX to the Marketing Fee Program if the Exchange believes it would potentially generate more customer order flow in SPEQX options.
The Exchange proposes to exclude SPEQX options from the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program, which offers rebates for Firm Facilitated and non-Firm Facilitated orders that correspond to certain volume tiers and is designed to incentivize order flow in multiply listed options to the Exchange's trading floor. The Exchange proposes to update the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program to provide that the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program applies to all products except Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP and FLEX Micros.
The Exchange next proposes to exclude SPEQX options from eligibility for the Order Router Subsidy (“ORS”) and Complex Order Router Subsidy (“CORS”) Programs, in which Participating TPHs or Participating Non-Cboe TPHs may receive a payment from the Exchange for every executed contract routed to the Exchange through their system in certain classes. Specifically, the proposed rule change updates the ORS/CORS Program tables to provide that ORS/CORS participants whose total aggregate non-customer ORS and CORS volume is greater than 0.25% of the total national volume (excluding volume in options classes included in Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, SPEQX, XSP or FLEX Micros) will receive an additional payment for all executed contracts exceeding that threshold during a calendar month. The proposed rule change also updates Footnote 29 (appended to the ORS Program table) to provide that Cboe Options does not make payments under the program with respect to executed contracts in options classes included in Underlying Symbols List A, Sector Indexes, DJX, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW,
The Exchange also proposes to amend Footnote 6, which states that in the event of an Exchange System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on the Exchange that lasts longer than 60 minutes, the Exchange will adjust the national volume in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol List A, Sector Indexes, CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, MXEA, MXEF, MXACW, MXUSA, MXWLD, NANOS, DJX, XSP and FLEX Micros for the entire trading day. The Exchange proposes to add SPEQX options to the list of options.
The Exchange also proposes to exclude Firm (
Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt a financial program in connection with SPEQX options for LMMs appointed to the programs (the “LMM Incentive Program”).
The Exchange notes that it currently offers several LMM Incentive Programs for other proprietary Exchange products. The proposed heightened quoting standards are similar to the detail and format (corresponding premiums, quote widths, and sizes) of the quoting standards currently in place for LMM Incentive Programs for other proprietary Exchange products,
The Exchange proposes to adopt a SPEQX LMM Incentive Program (“SPEQX LMM Incentive Program”). As proposed, the SPEQX LMM Incentive Program provides that if an LMM appointed to the SPEQX LMM Incentive Program provides continuous electronic quotes during Regular Trading Hours (“RTH”) that meet or exceed the proposed heightened quoting standards (below) in at least 90% of SPEQX series 90% of the time in a given month, the LMM will receive a payment for that month in the amount of $15,000 (or pro-rated amount if an appointment begins after the first trading day of the month or ends prior to the last trading day of the month) for that month.
The heightened quoting requirements offered by the SPEQX LMM Incentive Program is designed to incentivize LMMs appointed to the SPEQX LMM Incentive Program to provide significant liquidity in SPEQX options during the trading day upon their listing and trading on the Exchange, which, in turn, would provide greater trading opportunities, added market transparency and enhanced price discovery for all market participants in SPEQX options.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the Fees Schedule in connection with standard transaction rates and surcharges for SPEQX options transactions are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed standard transaction rates for Customer and non-Customer orders in SPEQX options are reasonable. Specifically, the proposed fees are in line with fees for transactions in other Exchange proprietary products, when taking into account adjustments for notional size differences. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation that exists today for other index products.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to apply the FLEX Surcharge Fee to SPEQX options, as the FLEX Surcharge Fee assists the Exchange in recouping the cost of developing and maintaining the FLEX system. Moreover, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude SPEQX options from the Complex Surcharge because the proposed surcharge exclusions will provide consistency between the fees assessed for orders in other proprietary products, including CBTX, MBTX, MRUT, NANOS, XSP, FLEX Micros, Sector Indexes and Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange believes the proposed standard transaction rates and inclusion/exclusion from certain surcharges are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply automatically and uniformly to all capacities as applicable (
The Exchange believes that the proposed updates to the Fees Schedule in connection with the application of certain fees programs to transactions in SPEQX options are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to exclude SPEQX options from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the VIP, Break-Up Credits applicable to Customer Agency Orders in AIM and SAM, the Marketing Fee, the Floor Broker Sliding Scale Rebate Program, and the ORS/CORS program because other proprietary index products are also excepted from these programs.
The Exchange believes that excluding SPEQX options transactions from certain fees programs is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the programs will equally not apply to, or exclude in the same manner, all market participants' orders in SPEQX options. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not alter any of the existing program rates or volume calculations, but instead, merely proposes to include (or not to) include transactions in SPEQX options in those programs and volume calculations in the same way that transactions in proprietary index products are (or are not) currently included.
The Exchange believes the proposed LMM Incentive Program is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Particularly, the proposed SPEQX LMM Incentive Program is a reasonable financial incentive program because the proposed heightened quoting standards and rebate amount for meeting the heightened quoting standards in SPEQX series, as applicable, are reasonably designed to incentivize LMMs appointed to the Program to meet the proposed heightened quoting standards during RTH for SPEQX, as applicable, thereby providing liquid and active markets, which facilitates tighter spreads, increased trading opportunities, and overall enhanced market quality to the benefit of all market participants, particularly in newly listed and traded products on the Exchange during the trading day.
The Exchange believes that the proposed heightened quoting standards are reasonable because they are similar to the detail and format (corresponding premiums, quote widths, and sizes) of the quoting standards currently in place for LMM Incentive Programs for other proprietary Exchange products.
Further, the Exchange believes the proposed percentage of the series (90% of each series) in which an LMM must meet the proposed heightened quoting requirements is reasonable given the new market ecosystem for SPEQX options. The Exchange believes the proposed percentage of the series is reasonably commensurate with the potentially higher risk, and challenge in achieving the heightened quoting requirements, LMMs would have to take on in a newly listed and traded options class on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the percentage of the series in place under the LMM Programs for MXWLD options (90% of series), which is comparable in terms of potentially higher risk and challenge in achieving heightened quoting requirements, are tailored in a similar manner.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rebate amounts received for SPEQX ($15,000) options is reasonable because it is comparable to the rebates offered by other LMM Incentive Programs offered by the Exchange. For example, the LMM Program for MXWLD options, which is comparable in terms of potentially higher risk and challenge in achieving heightened quoting requirements, currently offers $15,000 per class, per month to appointed LMMs for MXWLD options if the heightened quoting standards are met in a given month. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate amounts are reasonably designed to continue to incentivize an LMM appointed to the respective program to meet the applicable quoting standards for SPEQX options, thereby providing liquid and active markets, which facilitates tighter spreads, increased trading opportunities, and overall enhanced market quality to the benefit of all market participants.
Finally, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer the financial incentive to LMMs appointed to the LMM Incentive Program, because it will benefit all market participants trading in SPEQX during RTH by encouraging the appointed LMMs to satisfy the heightened quoting standards, which incentivizes continuous increased liquidity and thereby may provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Indeed, the Exchange notes that these LMMs serve a crucial role in providing quotes and the opportunity for market participants to trade SPEQX, which can lead to increased volume, providing for robust markets. The Exchange ultimately proposes to offer the SPEQX LMM Incentive Program to sufficiently incentivize the appointed LMMs to provide key liquidity and active markets in the newly listed and traded SPEQX options during the trading day to encourage liquidity, thereby protecting investors and the public interest. The Exchange also notes that an LMM appointed to the LMM Incentive Program may undertake added costs each month to satisfy heightened quoting standards (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed SPEQX transaction fees for the separate types of market participants will be assessed automatically and uniformly to all such market participants,
Further, the proposed rule change will uniformly exclude all transactions in SPEQX options from certain programs and surcharge (
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed LMM Incentive Program for SPEQX options would impose any burden on intramarket competition because it applies to all LMMs appointed to the LMM Incentive Program in a uniform manner, in the same way similar programs apply to appointed LMMs in other proprietary products today. To the extent appointed LMMs receive a benefit that other market participants do not, these LMMs in their role as Market-Makers on the Exchange have different obligations and are held to different standards. For example, Market-Makers play a crucial role in providing active and liquid markets in their appointed products, especially in the newly developing SPEQX market, thereby providing a robust market which benefits all market participants. Such Market-Makers also have obligations and regulatory requirements that other participants do not have. The Exchange also notes that an LMM appointed to an incentive program may undertake added costs each month to satisfy heightened quoting standards (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule changes apply only to products exclusively listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become an MBSD Clearing Member or MBSD Cash Settling Bank Member to obtain and provide a Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) to FICC as part of its membership application and (ii) each GSD Funds-Only Settling Bank Member, MBSD Clearing Member and MBSD Cash Settling Bank Member to have a current LEI on file with FICC at all times. FICC is also proposing to revise the defined term used in the GSD Rules relating to LEIs to conform to the proposed defined term being added to the MBSD Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Rules in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become an MBSD Clearing Member or MBSD Cash Settling Bank Member to obtain and provide a LEI to FICC as part of its membership application and (ii) each GSD Funds-Only Settling Bank Member, MBSD Clearing Member and MBSD Cash Settling Bank Member to have a current LEI on file with FICC at all times. FICC is also proposing to revise the defined term used in the GSD Rules relating to LEIs to conform to the proposed defined term being added to the MBSD Rules.
An LEI is a 20-character reference code to uniquely identify legally distinct entities that engage in financial transactions.
LEIs are issued by entities called Local Operating Units (“LOUs”) that are accredited by GLEIF to issue LEIs within certain jurisdictions.
FICC's parent entity, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”),
FICC is proposing to add a requirement that its applicants and members of MBSD and GSD Funds-Only
• Simplify Operational Processes—LEIs would help simplify and expedite due diligence and know your customer (“KYC”) verification of participants enabling FICC to do business with participants faster and safer.
• Enhance Risk Management—LEIs provide information about counterparty relationships and hierarchies within and between financial entities, improving counterparty risk assessment and management.
• Leverage Existing Capabilities—The use of LEIs would allow FICC to leverage existing DTCC technology and data to create automatic upfront validations to support participant onboarding and lifecycle management for FICC and DTCC's other subsidiaries.
• Reliable Data Source—The LEI system is supported by a trusted method of verifying the identity of the legal entity in question and would provide a reliable data source. This is supported by the LOUs maintenance of all respective reference and identification data and the overall global LEI system which is coordinated and overseen by ROC.
• Reduction in Record Duplication—The use of LEIs would reduce overlap and duplication of data within databases, helps streamline data reconciliations and reduce data errors by decreasing the requirements for manual comparison of different databases.
Implementing an LEI requirement is also intended to improve DTCC's ability to manage data across its subsidiaries, including FICC. Many participants are shared among FICC and its affiliates. Currently, there is no consistent requirement for submission of an industry identifier by FICC and DTCC's other subsidiaries. This has impacted DTCC's ability to profile its subsidiaries' participants quickly and efficiently across all the subsidiaries' products and services. DTCC's other subsidiaries are also implementing an LEI requirement consistent with the LEI requirements being proposed for FICC.
Based on an analysis by FICC, approximately 97% of MBSD Members currently have an LEI. Adding the LEI requirement would require the MBSD Members and GSD Funds-Only Settling Bank Members that have not obtained an LEI to select an LOU,
Failure to adhere to the LEI requirement could result in a fine in accordance with the Rules.
In order to add the requirement that participants obtain and provide an LEI, FICC is proposing to make the following changes.
FICC would amend GSD Rule 1 to change the defined term “Legal Entity Identifier” to “LEI” to conform the proposed defined term being added to the MBSD Rules. FICC is not proposing to substantively change the current defined term. FICC would replace the term Legal Entity Identifier with LEI in each place that it is used in the GSD Rules.
FICC would amend Section 4(d) of GSD Rule 13 to require that each Funds-Only Settling Bank Member always has a current LEI on file with FICC. FICC is proposing to add a footnote in that section that states such members shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit their LEIs. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
FICC would add a new defined term, LEI, to MBSD Rule 1. FICC would use the terminology of the GLEIF for the definition.
FICC would amend Section 3 of MBSD Rule 2A to require each FICC applicant who becomes a Clearing Member to obtain and provide an LEI to FICC as part of its membership application.
FICC would amend Section 2 of MBSD Rule 3 to require that each Member always have a current LEI on file with FICC. FICC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states such members shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit their LEIs. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
FICC would amend Section (b)(iv) of MBSD Rule 3A to require that each applicant to become a Cash Settling Bank Member shall obtain and provide to FICC an LEI. FICC would amend Section (d) of Rule 3A to require that each Cash Settling Bank Member always have a current LEI on file with FICC. FICC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states such Cash Settling Bank Members shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit LEIs for each of their Sponsored Members. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
DTCC is determining a framework relating to the adoption of the selected LEI option across all DTCC subsidiaries and product lines, including an approach to managing the implementation of the LEI requirement for both existing and new clients of FICC. FICC would provide notice to existing GSD Funds-Only Settling Bank Members, MBSD Clearing Members, and MBSD Cash Settling Bank Members, including by Important Notice, advising them of the LEI requirements for FICC and notifying them of the dates by which they are expected to have obtained and provided an LEI to FICC. FICC would give such members that do not currently have an LEI, 60-calendar
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires, that the Rules be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
FICC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement are consistent with this provision because the proposed revisions would improve the quality of data that is collected from FICC's participants as well as the process for collecting that data including (i) simplifying and expediting certain operational processes, including due diligence and KYC, by utilizing an efficient and accurate method to verify identity of FICC participants, (ii) enhancing counterparty risk assessment and management of participants by improving information about counterparty relationships and hierarchies within and between participants, (iii) creating efficiencies relating to onboarding and lifecycle management for FICC and DTCC's other subsidiaries that share participants, (iv) obtaining reliable data from the standardized global LEI system, a dependable source of verified data, and (v) reducing overlap and duplication of data within databases and helping to streamline data reconciliations and reduce data errors. FICC believes that creating efficiencies in operational processes, onboarding and lifecycle management and improving risk management by improving the quality of verified data that is collected from FICC's participants as well as the process for collecting that data would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions by FICC. As such, FICC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
FICC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement could impose a burden on competition because these changes would impose a cost on firms that currently do not have an LEI to obtain and maintain them. FICC does not believe that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change would be significant because the cost to obtain and maintain an LEI is relatively small,
FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on
FICC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to the Rules in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become a Participant, Pledgee, DRS Agent or FAST Agent to obtain and provide a Legal Entity Identifier (“LEI”) to DTC as part of its membership application, (ii) each Participant, Pledgee, DRS Agent and FAST Agent to have a current LEI on file with DTC at all times, and (iii) CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (“CDS”) to provide DTC with an LEI for each current participant of CDS (“CDS Participant”) for which CDS maintains a subaccount at DTC and for each newly added CDS Participant going forward.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Rules in order to require (i) each applicant applying to become a Participant, Pledgee, DRS Agent or FAST Agent to obtain and provide an LEI to DTC as part of its membership application, (ii) each Participant, Pledgee, DRS Agent and FAST Agent to have a current LEI on file with DTC at all times, and (iii) CDS to provide DTC with an LEI for each current CDS Participant for which CDS maintains a subaccount at DTC and for each newly added CDS Participant going forward.
An LEI is a 20-character reference code to uniquely identify legally distinct entities that engage in financial transactions.
LEIs are issued by entities called Local Operating Units (“LOUs”) that are accredited by GLEIF to issue LEIs within certain jurisdictions.
DTC's parent entity, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”),
DTC is proposing to add a requirement that its applicants and participants obtain and provide an LEI to DTC similar to the requirement currently in place for its affiliate, FICC, which requires LEIs for members of its Government Securities Division.
• Simplify Operational Processes—LEIs would help simplify and expedite due diligence and know your customer (“KYC”) verification of participants enabling DTC to do business with participants faster and safer.
• Enhance Risk Management—LEIs provide information about counterparty relationships and hierarchies within and between financial entities, improving counterparty risk assessment and management.
• Leverage Existing Capabilities—The use of LEIs would allow DTC to leverage existing DTCC technology and data to create automatic upfront validations to support participant onboarding and lifecycle management for DTC and DTCC's other subsidiaries.
• Reliable Data Source—The LEI system is supported by a trusted method of verifying the identity of the legal entity in question and would provide a reliable data source. This is supported by the LOUs maintenance of all respective reference and identification data and the overall global LEI system which is coordinated and overseen by ROC.
• Reduction in Record Duplication—The use of LEIs would reduce overlap and duplication of data within databases, helps streamline data reconciliations and reduce data errors by decreasing the requirements for manual comparison of different databases.
Implementing an LEI requirement is also intended to improve DTCC's ability to manage data across its subsidiaries, including DTC. Many participants are shared among DTC and its affiliates. Currently, there is no consistent requirement for submission of an industry identifier by DTC and DTCC's other subsidiaries. This has impacted DTCC's ability to profile its subsidiaries' participants quickly and efficiently across all the subsidiaries' products and services. DTCC's other subsidiaries are also implementing an LEI requirement consistent with the LEI requirements being proposed for DTC.
Based on an analysis by DTC, approximately 89% of Participants, 71% of Pledgees, 46% of DRS Agents, and 100% of CDS Participants currently have an LEI. Adding the LEI requirement would require the DTC participants that have not obtained an LEI to select an LOU,
Failure to adhere to the LEI requirement could result in a fine in accordance with the Rules.
In order to add the requirement that participants obtain and provide an LEI, DTC is proposing to make the following changes.
DTC would add a new defined term, LEI, to Rule 1. DTC would use the terminology of the GLEIF for the definition.
DTC would add a new Section 12 to Rule 2 to require (i) each DTC applicant to obtain and provide an LEI to DTC as part of its membership application and (ii) each Participant, Pledgee, DRS Agent and FAST Agent to always have a current LEI on file with DTC. DTC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states such Participants, Pledgees, DRS Agents and FAST Agents shall have 60 calendar days from the date they are notified by Important Notice to submit their LEIs. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
DTC would add a new Section 11 to Rule 30 to require that CDS provide DTC with an LEI for each CDS Participant for which CDS opens and maintains a subaccount at the Corporation such that the Corporation shall have a current LEI for each such CDS Participant at all times. DTC is proposing to add a footnote in that section which states that CDS shall have 60 calendar days from the date that CDS is notified by Important Notice to submit LEIs for each of the CDS Participants. The footnote would provide that it would sunset at the end of the 60-calendar day period.
DTCC is determining a framework relating to the adoption of the selected LEI option across all DTCC subsidiaries and product lines, including an approach to managing the implementation of the LEI requirement for both existing and new clients of DTC. DTC would provide notice to existing Participants, Pledgees, DRS Agents, FAST Agents and CDS, including by Important Notice, advising them of the LEI requirements for DTC and notifying them of the dates by which they are expected to have obtained and provided an LEI to DTC. DTC would give Participants, Pledgees, DRS Agents, FAST Agents and CDS that do not currently have the requisite LEIs, 60-calendar days from the date of the notice to obtain and provide the requisite LEIs to DTC. DTC considers 60-calendar days to be sufficient for obtaining an LEI, as it can typically be acquired within a few days once the entity provides the necessary entity information to the LOU.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires, that the Rules be designed to, among other things, promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
DTC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement are
DTC believes that the proposed changes to add an LEI requirement could impose a burden on competition because these changes would impose a cost on firms that currently do not have an LEI to obtain and maintain them. DTC does not believe that any burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change would be significant because the cost to obtain and maintain an LEI is relatively small,
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they will be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on
DTC reserves the right not to respond to any comments received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Phlx proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
Phlx previously filed a proposed amendment to its ORF, effective as of January 1, 2025,
At this time, the Exchange proposes to discontinue its June 2025 ORF. The Exchange received feedback from members and member organizations
To create real ORF reform, moving to a new ORF model that only assesses a fee to transactions that occur on the Exchange would remove any duplicative ORF billing. The Exchange believes that each exchange should likewise adopt a similar model to ensure consistent industry billing of ORF to the benefit of market participants. A consistent methodology of assessing and collecting ORF will also remove confusion and complexity in the billing of ORF. The Exchange has been engaged in remodeling its current ORF over the last year and has held many conversations with market participants to establish a framework that is practical and fair. The Exchange remains committed to ORF reform and will continue to evaluate its ORF model and seek feedback from market participants.
The Exchange also proposes to remove a sentence that states, “As of November 1, 2024, the ORF is $0.0022 per contract side.” This sentence is outdated.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is reasonable because it has come to light that certain information necessary for billing of ORF would not be available later in 2025. In light of this information, the Exchange has been re-evaluating its ORF model and plans to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF, which would be subject to, and described further in, a future rule filing. Particularly, the Exchange anticipates moving to a modified ORF model in which ORF would only be assessed to on-exchange transactions and would continue to be assessed only to customers. At this this time, the Exchange expects to continue assessing ORF as it does today and will continue to ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposal would not apply to any member or member organization.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because no member or member organization would be subject to the June 2025 ORF as a result of this proposal.
Additionally, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 22, 2024, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Section 102.01A of the Manual (“Section 102.01A”) sets forth the Exchange's minimum initial listing requirements with respect to distribution criteria for companies seeking to list under the Exchange's domestic company initial listing standards.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 102.01B under the heading “Calculations under the Distribution Criteria” to provide that, when listing a company from outside North America when such company is listing in connection with its initial public offering (“IPO”) and is not listed on any other regulated stock exchange, the Exchange will include all holders on a global basis in applying the minimum stockholder requirements of Section 102.01A.
The Exchange states that the current rule, which does not allow the Exchange to include stockholders outside of North America in determining compliance with the stockholder distribution requirements of Section 102.01A when the company is from outside North America and is not listed on a regulated stock exchange, does not reflect the speed and reliability of links that enable investors who hold securities in brokerage accounts in countries outside North America to trade in the U.S. listing markets.
In addition, Section 102.01B under the heading “Calculations under the
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to include all holders on a global basis in applying the minimum initial stockholder requirements set forth in Section 102.01A in instances where the company being considered for listing under the domestic company equity listing standards is from outside North America, is listing in connection with its IPO, and is not listed on another regulated stock exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange's proposal to include holders of ordinary shares on an ADR-equivalent basis in determining whether non-U.S. companies listing ADRs in connection with an IPO, where the companies' ordinary shares are not listed on any regulated stock exchange other than the NYSE, comply with the initial listing stockholder criteria of Section 102.01A is consistent with its current practice and consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
The Commission finds that proposed rule change is also consistent with the requirement of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange is responding to competitive pressures in the market for listings in making this proposal. As the Exchange states, the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) do not contain any geographic limitation on its total stockholder initial listing criteria when listing a company from outside North America.
The Exchange's proposal would also amend Section 102.01B to clarify that the current rule text, which provides the Exchange discretion when listing a company from outside North America to include stockholders and trading volume from the company's home country or primary trading market outside North America in applying the applicable requirements of Section 102.01A,
For these reasons, the proposal is reasonably designed to help ensure that the Exchange lists only those companies with sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity to promote fair and orderly markets. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of both 24X and FINRA.
The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed Plan is an exhibit (the “24X Certification of Common Rules,” referred to herein as the “Certification”) that lists every 24X rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to 24X members that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith (“Dual Members”).
Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members with the rules of 24X that are substantially similar to the applicable rules of FINRA,
Under the Plan, 24X would retain full responsibility for surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving 24X's own marketplace, including, without limitation, registration pursuant to its
The text of the proposed 17d-2 Plan is as follows:
This Agreement, by and between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and 24X National Exchange LLC (“24X”), is made this 17th day of April, 2025 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, which permits agreements between self-regulatory organizations to allocate regulatory responsibility to eliminate regulatory duplication. FINRA and 24X may be referred to individually as a “party” and together as the “parties.”
Definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this Agreement or the context otherwise requires, the terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as they have under the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
“24X Rules” or “FINRA Rules” shall mean the rules of 24X or FINRA, respectively, as the rules of an exchange or association are defined in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(27).
“Common Rules” shall mean the 24X Rules that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA Rules and certain provisions of the Exchange Act and SEC rules set forth on Exhibit 1 in that examination, surveillance or investigation for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination, surveillance or investigation standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such provision or rule; provided, however, Common Rules shall not include the application of the SEC, 24X or FINRA rules as they pertain to violations of insider trading activities, which is covered by a separate 17d-2 Agreement by and among Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., MEMX LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE National, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca Inc., Investors' Exchange LLC and Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. approved by the Commission on September 23, 2020, as may be amended from time to time. Common Rules shall not include any provisions regarding (i) notice, reporting or any other filings made directly to or from 24X, (ii) incorporation by reference of other 24X Rules that are not Common Rules, (iii) exercise of discretion in a manner that differs from FINRA's exercise of discretion including, but not limited to exercise of exemptive authority, by 24X, (iv) prior written approval of 24X and (v) payment of fees or fines to 24X.
“Dual Members” shall mean those 24X members that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith.
“Effective Date” shall be the date this Agreement is approved by the Commission.
“Enforcement Responsibilities” shall mean the conduct of appropriate proceedings, in accordance with the FINRA Code of Procedure (the Rule 9000 Series) and other applicable FINRA procedural rules, to determine whether violations of Common Rules have occurred, and if such violations are deemed to have occurred, the imposition of appropriate sanctions as specified under the FINRA Code of Procedure and FINRA's sanction guidelines.
“Regulatory Responsibilities” shall mean the examination, surveillance and investigation responsibilities and Enforcement Responsibilities relating to compliance by the Dual Members with the Common Rules and the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations, each as set forth on Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
Regulatory Responsibilities. FINRA shall assume Regulatory Responsibilities for Dual Members. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this Agreement and made part hereof, 24X furnished FINRA with a current list of Common Rules and certified to FINRA that such rules are substantially similar to the corresponding FINRA Rules (the “Certification”). FINRA hereby agrees that the rules listed in the Certification are Common Rules as defined in this Agreement. Each year following the Effective Date of this Agreement, or more frequently if required by changes in either 24X Rules or FINRA Rules, 24X shall submit an updated list of Common Rules to FINRA for review which shall add 24X Rules not included in the current list of Common Rules that qualify as Common Rules as defined in this Agreement; delete 24X Rules included in the current list of Common Rules that no longer qualify as Common Rules as defined in this Agreement; and confirm that the remaining rules on the current list of Common Rules continue to be 24X Rules that qualify as Common Rules as defined in this Agreement. Within 30 days of receipt of such updated list, FINRA shall confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are Common Rules as defined in this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, it is explicitly understood that the term “Regulatory Responsibilities” does not include, and 24X shall retain full responsibility for (unless otherwise addressed by separate agreement or rule) the following (collectively, the “Retained Responsibilities”): surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving 24X's own marketplace except as otherwise specified in the list of Common Rules in Exhibit 1; registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
No Charge. There shall be no charge to 24X by FINRA for performing the Regulatory Responsibilities and Enforcement Responsibilities under this Agreement except as hereinafter provided. FINRA shall provide 24X with ninety (90) days advance written notice in the event FINRA decides to impose any changes to 24X for performing the Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement. If FINRA determines to impose a charge, 24X shall have the right at the time of imposition of such charge to terminate this Agreement; provided, however, that FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement shall continue until the Commission approves the termination of this Agreement.
Applicability of Certain Laws, Rules, Regulations or Orders. Notwithstanding any provision hereof, this Agreement shall be subject to any statute, or any rule or order of the Commission. To the extent such statute, rule or order is inconsistent with this Agreement, the statute, rule or order shall supersede the provision(s) hereof to the extent necessary for them to be properly effectuated and the provision(s) hereof in that respect shall be null and void.
Notification of Violations.
In the event that FINRA becomes aware of apparent violations of any 24X Rules, which are not listed as Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Regulatory Responsibilities assumed hereunder, FINRA shall notify 24X of those apparent violations for such response as 24X deems appropriate. With respect to apparent violations of any 24X Rules by any Router Member, FINRA shall not make referrals to 24X pursuant to this paragraph 5. Such apparent violations shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA as provided in this Agreement.
In the event that 24X becomes aware of apparent violations of any Common Rules, discovered pursuant to the performance of the Retained Responsibilities, 24X shall
Apparent violations of Common Rules shall be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in respect thereto shall be conducted by FINRA as provided hereinbefore; provided, however, that in the event a Dual Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on 24X, 24X may in its discretion assume concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility.
Each party agrees to make available promptly all files, records and witnesses necessary to assist the other in its investigation or proceedings.
Continued Assistance. FINRA shall make available to 24X all information obtained by FINRA in the performance by it of the Regulatory Responsibilities hereunder with respect to the Dual Members subject to this Agreement. In particular, and not in limitation of the foregoing, FINRA shall furnish 24X any information it obtains about Dual Members which reflects adversely on their financial condition. 24X shall make available to FINRA any information coming to its attention that reflects adversely on the financial condition of Dual Members or indicates possible violations of applicable laws, rules or regulations by such firms.
The parties agree that documents or information shared shall be held in confidence, and used only for the purposes of carrying out their respective regulatory obligations. Neither party shall assert regulatory or other privileges as against the other with respect to documents or information that is required to be shared pursuant to this Agreement. The sharing of documents or information between the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver as against third parties of regulatory or other privileges relating to the discovery of documents or information.
Dual Member Applications. Dual Members subject to this Agreement shall be required to submit, and FINRA shall be responsible for processing and acting upon all applications submitted on behalf of partners, officers, registered personnel and any other person required to be approved by the 24X Rules and FINRA Rules or associated with Dual Members thereof. Upon request, FINRA shall advise 24X of any changes of allied members, partners, officers, registered personnel and other persons required to be approved by the 24X Rules and FINRA Rules. Dual Members shall be required to send to FINRA all letters, termination notices or other material respecting the individuals listed in paragraph 7(a).
When as a result of processing such submissions FINRA becomes aware of a statutory disqualification as defined in the Exchange Act with respect to a Dual Member, FINRA shall determine pursuant to Sections 15A(g) and/or Section 6(c) of the Exchange Act the acceptability or continued applicability of the person to whom such disqualification applies and keep 24X advised of its actions in this regard for such subsequent proceedings as 24X may initiate.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, FINRA shall not review the membership application, reports, filings, fingerprint cards, notices, or other writings filed to determine if such documentation submitted by a broker or dealer, or an associated person therewith or other persons required to register or qualify by examination meets the 24X requirements for general membership or for specified categories of membership or participation in 24X. FINRA shall not review applications or other documentation filed to request a change in the rights or status described in this paragraph 7(d), including termination or limitation on activities, of a member or a participant of 24X, or a person associated with, or requesting association with, a member or participant of 24X.
Branch Office Information. FINRA shall also be responsible for processing and, if required, acting upon all requests for the opening, address changes, and terminations of branch offices by Dual Members and any other applications required of Dual Members with respect to the Common Rules as they may be amended from time to time. Upon request, FINRA shall advise 24X of the opening, address change and termination of branch and main offices of Dual Members and the names of such branch office managers.
Customer Complaints. 24X shall forward to FINRA copies of all customer complaints involving Dual Members received by 24X relating to FINRA's Regulatory Responsibilities under this Agreement. It shall be FINRA's responsibility to review and take appropriate action in respect to such complaints.
Advertising. FINRA shall assume responsibility to review the advertising of Dual Members subject to the Agreement, provided that such material is filed with FINRA in accordance with FINRA's filing procedures and is accompanied with any applicable filing fees set forth in FINRA Rules.
No Restrictions on Regulatory Action. Notwithstanding anything else herein and to the contrary, except for paragraph 5(a), nothing contained in this Agreement shall restrict or in any way encumber the right of either party to conduct its own independent or concurrent investigation, examination or enforcement proceeding of or against Dual Members, as either party, in its sole discretion, shall deem appropriate or necessary.
Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by 24X or FINRA at any time upon the approval of the Commission after one (1) year's written notice to the other party, except as provided in paragraph 3.
Arbitration. In the event of a dispute between the parties as to the operation of this Agreement, 24X and FINRA hereby agree that any such dispute shall be settled by arbitration in Washington, DC in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect, or such other procedures as the parties may mutually agree upon. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Each party acknowledges that the timely and complete performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement is critical to the business and operations of the other party. In the event of a dispute between the parties, the parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement in good faith during the resolution of such dispute unless and until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with its provisions. Nothing in this paragraph 13 shall interfere with a party's right to terminate this Agreement as set forth herein.
Amendment. This Agreement may be amended in writing duly approved by each party. All such amendments must be filed with and approved by the Commission before they become effective.
Limitation of Liability. Neither FINRA nor 24X nor any of their respective directors, governors, officers or employees shall be liable to the other party to this Agreement for any liability, loss or damage resulting from or claimed to have resulted from any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions with respect to the provision of Regulatory Responsibilities as provided hereby or for the failure to provide any such responsibility, except with respect to such liability, loss or damages as shall have been suffered by one or the other of FINRA or 24X and caused by the willful misconduct of the other party or their respective directors, governors, officers or employees. No warranties, express or implied, are made by FINRA or 24X with respect to any of the responsibilities to be performed by them hereunder.
Relief from Responsibility. Pursuant to Sections 17(d)(1)(A) and 19(g) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17d-2 thereunder, the parties join in requesting the Commission, upon its approval of this Agreement or any part thereof, to relieve 24X of any and all responsibilities with respect to matters allocated to FINRA pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be effective until the Effective Date.
Severability. Any term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without rendering invalid or unenforceable the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement or affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement in any other jurisdiction.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]
24X hereby certifies that the requirements contained in the rules listed below for 24X are identical to, or substantially similar to, the comparable FINRA Rules, Exchange Act provision or Securities Exchange Act Rule (SEA) rule identified (“Common Rules”). # Common Rules shall not include any provisions regarding (i) notice, reporting or any other filings made directly to or from 24X, (ii) incorporation by reference of 24X Rules that are not Common Rules, (iii) exercise of discretion in a manner that differs from FINRA's exercise of discretion
Pursuant to Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
In order to assist the Commission in determining whether to approve the proposed 17d-2 Plan and to relieve 24X of the responsibilities which would be assigned to FINRA, interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing. 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, Station Place, 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 modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to waive the maximum combined Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program for the months of May, June, and July 2025. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective May 1, 2025. 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 purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to waive the maximum combined Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program for the months of months of May, June, and July 2025.
The Exchange imposes a limit on the maximum combined Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program of $3,000,000 per month per Floor Broker firm (the “Cap”).
In mid-April, in response to extreme market volatility and concomitant surge of open outcry volume that led to Floor Broker firms earning higher than average monthly credits/rebates, the Exchange waived the Cap for April 2025.
At present, the market remains volatile and open outcry volume on the Exchange remains elevated. The Exchange therefore proposes to waive the Cap for the months of May, June and July 2025.
Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many Floor Broker firms would be impacted by this change, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incent Floor Brokers to continue to direct their order flow to the Exchange thus increasing liquidity to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The proposed waiver of the Cap is reasonable because it is designed to encourage the role performed by Floor Brokers in facilitating the execution of orders via open outcry, a function that the Exchange wishes to support for the benefit of all market participants. Absent the proposed waiver, the Exchange believes that as soon as Floor Brokers reach the Cap, they are likely to re-direct order flow away from the Exchange, which may adversely impact other market participants trading on the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed waiver encourages Floor Brokers to facilitate transactions on the Exchange instead of on a competing market, all market participants participating on the Exchange would benefit from the increased liquidity. The Exchange believes the proposed waiver should continue to incent Floor Brokers to encourage market participants to aggregate their executions at the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change achieves its purpose in attracting more volume to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution, thus improving market quality for all market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed waiver of the Cap is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits and is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on the Exchange. Floor Brokers are not obligated to execute manual transactions (and QCCs) to earn rebates and credits applied toward the Cap. However, the proposed waiver is designed to continue to encourage the role performed by Floor Brokers in facilitating the execution of orders via open outcry, a function that the Exchange wishes to support for the benefit of all market participants.
To the extent that the proposed waiver of the Cap continues to attract manual transactions (and QCCs) to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed waiver would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the Cap reflects this competitive environment because it is designed to continue to incent Floor Brokers to direct manual and QCC transactions to the Exchange, to provide liquidity and to attract order flow. To the extent that Floor Brokers are encouraged to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for all
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 31 of the Exchange Act requires the Commission to collect fees and assessments from national securities exchanges and national securities associations (collectively, “self-regulatory organizations” or “SROs”) based on the volume of their securities transactions. To collect the proper amounts, the Commission adopted Rule 31 and Form R31 under the Exchange Act whereby each SRO must report to the Commission the volume of its securities transactions and the Commission, based on those data, calculates the amount of fees and assessments that each SRO owes pursuant to Section 31. Rule 31 and Form R31 require each SRO to provide these data on a monthly basis.
Currently, there are 31 respondents under Rule 31 that are subject to the collection of information requirements of Rule 31: 28 national securities exchanges, 1 national securities association, and 2 registered clearing agencies that are required to provide certain data in their possession needed by the SROs to complete Form R31, although these 2 clearing agencies are not themselves required to complete and submit Form R31. The Commission estimates that the total burden for all 31 respondents is 480 hours per year. The Commission estimates that, based on previous and current experience, 3 additional national securities exchanges will become registered and subject to the reporting requirements of Rule 31 over the course of the authorization period and collectively incur a burden of 18 hours per year. Thus, the Commission estimates the collective burden for all respondents (existing and new added together) to be 498 hours per
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Please direct your written comment to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 and send it by email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports (“Short Volume Reports”).
By way of background, the Short Volume Report is an end-of-day report that summarizes certain equity trading activity on the Exchange, including trade date,
Cboe LiveVol, LLC (“LiveVol”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc., makes the Short Volume Report available for purchase to Users on the LiveVol DataShop website (
The Exchange proposes to provide a pricing incentive program in which qualifying academic purchasers may purchase the historical reports for the greater fee of (i) a 50% discount off of their total purchase of historical Short Volume Reports or (ii) $500. For example, if a qualifying academic purchaser purchases a month and a half of data, for a total cost of $750 before the discount (for what would be a discounted price of $375), they will be charged the greater fee of $500.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges currently offer academic discounts for similar data feeds.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes will further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Exchange believes the dissemination of historical short volume data via historical Short Volume Reports benefits investors through increased transparency and may promote better informed trading, as well as research and studies of the equities industry. Nevertheless, the Exchange notes that such data is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Moreover, several other exchanges offer a similar data product which offer the same type of data content through similar reports.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the equity market share.
The Exchange believes that the discount for qualifying academic purchasers for the historical Short Volume Reports is reasonable because academic institutions are not able to monetize access to the data as they do not trade on the data set. The Exchange believes the proposed discount will allow for more academic institutions to purchase the historical Short Volume Reports, and, as a result, promote research and studies of the equities industry to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all academic institutions that submit an application and meet the accredited academic institution and academic use criteria. As stated above, qualified academic purchasers will subscribe to the data set for educational use and purposes and are not permitted to use the data for commercial or monetizing purposes, nor can they qualify if they are funded by an industry participant. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it maintains equal treatment for all industry participants or other subscribers that use the data for vocational, commercial or other for-profit purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, including the adoption of similar discounts to those fees, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes (including discounts and rebates) in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As discussed above, the Exchange's historical Short Volume Reports offering is subject to direct competition from several other options exchanges that offer similar data products. Moreover, purchase of historical Short Volume Reports is optional. It is designed to help investors understand underlying market trends to improve the quality of investment decisions, but is not necessary to execute a trade.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change will apply to all qualifying academic purchasers uniformly. While the proposed fee reduction applies only to qualifying academic purchasers, academic institutions' research and publications as a result of access to historical market data benefits all market participants. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as other options exchanges currently offer similar historical data to academic institutions at a discounted price.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 14, 2025, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC,” and together with DTC and FICC, the “Clearing Agencies,” or “Clearing Agency” when referring to one of the three Clearing Agencies) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule changes SR-DTC-2025-003; SR-FICC-2025-006; and SR-NSCC-2025-003 pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2)(i) of the Exchange Act
The 45th day after publication of the Notice of Filing is May 11, 2025. In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to consider the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Change and therefore is extending this 45-day time period.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE proposes to discontinue the ORF model scheduled to be implemented in June 2025.
ISE previously filed a proposed amendment to its ORF, effective as of January 1, 2025,
At this time, the Exchange proposes to discontinue its June 2025 ORF. The Exchange received feedback from Members
To create real ORF reform, moving to a new ORF model that only assesses a fee to transactions that occur on the Exchange would remove any duplicative ORF billing. The Exchange believes that each exchange should likewise adopt a similar model to ensure consistent industry billing of ORF to the benefit of market participants. A consistent methodology of assessing and collecting ORF will also remove confusion and complexity in the billing of ORF. The Exchange has been engaged in remodeling its current ORF over the last year and has held many conversations with market participants to establish a framework that is practical and fair. The Exchange remains committed to ORF reform and will continue to evaluate its ORF model and seek feedback from market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is reasonable because it has come to light that certain information necessary for billing of ORF would not be available later in 2025. In light of this information, the Exchange has been re-evaluating its ORF model and plans to revamp the current process of assessing and collecting ORF, which would be subject to, and described further in, a future rule filing. Particularly, the Exchange anticipates moving to a modified ORF model in which ORF would only be assessed to on-exchange transactions and would continue to be assessed only to customers. At this this time, the Exchange expects to continue assessing ORF as it does today and will continue to ensure that ORF Regulatory Revenue, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost.
The Exchange's proposal to discontinue its June 2025 ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the proposal would not apply to any Member.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because no Member would be subject to the June 2025 ORF as a result of this proposal.
Additionally, this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it is a regulatory fee that supports regulation in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of ORF Regulatory Revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed Options Regulatory Cost.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Vermeer's Love Letters” at The Frick Collection, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their 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,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The FHWA, on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to solicit comment and advise the public, agencies, Tribes, and stakeholders that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the North-South Corridor, Segment 1, a new highway between U.S. Highway 60 (US 60) and Arizona Farms Road in Pinal County, Arizona. The Tier 1 Final EIS and Record of Decision were completed in August 2021 and addressed the need for additional north-to-south transportation capacity and connectivity in Pinal County. This Tier 2 EIS will build upon the Tier 1 EIS process. A Tier 2 EIS has also been initiated for Segment 2 and a NOI is expected within the next 12-months.
Comments on the NOI or the NOI Supplementary Information Document must be received on or before June 10, 2025.
This NOI and the NOI Supplementary Information Document are available in the docket referenced above at
•
•
•
•
All submissions should include the agency, public, Tribe, or stakeholder name; the docket number that appears in the heading of this notice; and the project identification number. All comments received will be posted without change to
Mr. Steven Olmsted, Environmental Planning Program Delivery Manager, Arizona Department of Transportation, 205 South 17th Avenue, MD EM02, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, telephone: (480) 202-6050.
Email:
Email:
The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out under ADOT's assumption of FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act responsibilities through a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 25, 2024, and executed by the FHWA and ADOT.
Persons and agencies who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project are encouraged to comment on the information in this NOI and the NOI Supplementary Information Document. All comments received in response to this NOI document will be considered and any information presented herein.
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321,
The purpose and need of the North-South Corridor, as established during the Tier 1, is to enhance the area's transportation network to accommodate existing and future populations, improve access to future activity centers, improve regional mobility, provide an alternate to avoid traffic congestion on Interstate 10, improve north-to-south connectivity, and integrate the region's transportation network.
The proposed project would construct a new north-to-south freeway between US 60 and Arizona Farms Road. The EIS will evaluate a range of build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. ADOT has developed three preliminary build alternatives labeled Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Each preliminary build alternative is located within the 1,500-foot corridor established by the Tier 1 Selected Corridor Alternative and is approximately 20-miles long. All three preliminary build alternatives would connect with US 60 at the northern project limits and Arizona Farms Road at the southern project limits. In some areas where there are few environmental and technical constraints present, all three preliminary build alternatives use a common single alignment alternative. In other areas where environmental and technical constraints are present, the build alternatives are different and are described based on their horizontal location within the 1,500-foot corridor. Alternative 1 is within the western portions of the 1,500-foot corridor in constrained areas of the corridor, Alternative 2 is within the center zone, and Alternative 3 is within the eastern zone.
This study will also establish traffic interchange locations. The preliminary range of potential interchange locations include Houston Road, Elliott Road, Ray Road, State Route 24, Germann Road, Ocotillo Road, Combs Road/Riggs Road, Skyline Drive, Bella Vista Road, Judd Road, and Arizona Farms Road.
The No Build Alternative involves taking no action except routine maintenance and other presently planned and programmed projects.
Additional information on the purpose and need and alternatives, as well as maps and figures illustrating the project location, and coordination and public involvement efforts are provided in the NOI Supplementary Project Information available for review on the project website noted in the
The Tier 2 EIS will evaluate the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. The following resources are anticipated to be evaluated in detail during the environmental review process: Cultural and Historic Resources; Biological Resources and Wildlife Connectivity; Socioeconomics, Land Use, and Planned Development; Waters of the United States; Section 4(f); and Noise. Additionally, the EIS will also identify impacts to farmlands; recreation; topography, geology, and soils; hydrology, floodplains, and water resources; energy; Section 6(f) resources; air quality; transportation; hazardous waste sites; and visual resources.
Anticipated permits and authorizations that could be required prior to the commencement of construction include:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) approvals under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 401 water quality certification;
• Arizona State Land Department (ASLD);
• Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) authorization of the Central Arizona Project Canal crossing;
• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) approvals under the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
• Natural Resources Conservation Service approval under the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Public engagement activities for the Tier 2 EIS involved public information meetings held in September 2023. Agency coordination meetings include an Agency Early Scoping Meeting held in August 2023, Cooperating Agency meetings held between April 2024 and March 2025, and one-on-one coordination meetings on specific topics.
Cooperating agencies include USACE, Reclamation, USFWS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arizona Game and Fish Department, ASLD, and Pinal County. Participating agencies include the Bureau of Land Management, Federal Railroad Administration, Arizona SHPO, Arizona State Parks, Maricopa Association of Governments, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the City of Apache Junction, the Gila River Indian Community, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe. A Project Coordination Plan is attached to the NOI Supplemental Information Document.
All public comments received in response to this notice will be considered and potential revisions will be made to the information presented herein as appropriate. Comments must be received by June 10, 2025. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action, including the comments relative
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that, on April 30, 2025, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC) system to temporarily disable the system while upgrading end of life wayside signal operating equipment. FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTC system.
FRA will consider comments received by May 28, 2025. FRA may consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
In general, Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 236, Subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will publish a notice in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on SFRTA's RFA by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of this railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Solicitation of grant applications.
This document contains a notice that the IRS has provided a grant opportunity in
All applications and requests for continued funding for the 2026 grant year must be filed electronically by 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on July 14, 2025. The funding number is TREAS-GRANTS-042026-001, and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is 21.008, see
Karen Tober at (202) 317-4700 (not a
Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7526, the IRS will annually award up to $6,000,000 (unless otherwise provided by Congressional appropriation) to qualified organizations, subject to the limitations in the statute. The IRS will allow applicants to request up to $200,000 for the 2026 grant year. The IRS will also continue the ESL Education Program that was rolled out as part of the February 2023 supplemental funding opportunity. For FY 2026, if Congress significantly reduces the overall amount of LITC grant funding or reduces the per-clinic funding cap, the IRS will adjust each grant recipient's award to reflect any limitations in place at that time.
For an applicant proposing to provide tax controversy representation, at least 90 percent of the taxpayers represented by the clinic must have incomes which do not exceed 250 percent of the federal poverty level as determined under criteria established by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. See 90 FR 5917 (Jan. 17, 2025). In addition, the amount in controversy for the tax year to which the controversy relates generally cannot exceed the amount specified in IRC § 7463 ($50,000) for eligibility for special small tax case procedures in the United States Tax Court. IRC § 7526(c)(5) requires clinics to provide dollar-for-dollar matching funds, which may consist of funds from other non-federal sources or contributions of volunteer time. See IRS Pub. 3319 for additional details. An applicant who is planning to operate a program to inform ESL taxpayers about their taxpayer rights and responsibilities must have either a volunteer or a staff member designated as a Qualified Tax Expert, generally an attorney, enrolled agent or certified public accountant, to review and approve all educational material.
Low Income Taxpayer Clinics ensure the fairness and integrity of the tax system for taxpayers who are low-income or ESL by providing
IRC § 7526(b)(1)(A) authorizes the IRS to award grants to organizations that represent low-income taxpayers in controversies before the IRS or provide education to ESL taxpayers regarding their taxpayer rights and responsibilities.
Pursuant to the ESL Education Program a grant may be awarded to an organization to operate a program to inform ESL taxpayers about their taxpayer rights and responsibilities under the IRC without the requirement to also provide tax controversy representation to low-income taxpayers. See IRS Pub. 3319 for examples of what constitutes a “clinic.” Applicants should note clearly on their applications their intent to apply for the ESL Education Program and should carefully follow the instructions provided.
Despite the IRS's efforts to foster parity in availability and accessibility in choosing organizations receiving LITC matching grants and the continued increase in clinic services nationwide, there remain communities that are underserved by clinics- the states of Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, and West Virginia. In addition, Florida, Nevada and South Dakota have only partial coverage. The uncovered counties in those states are listed below:
Although each application for the 2026 grant year will be given due consideration, the IRS is especially interested in receiving applications from organizations providing services in these underserved geographic areas. For the ESL Education Program, special consideration will be given to established organizations with existing community partnerships that can swiftly implement and deliver services to the target audiences.
As in prior years, the IRS will consider a variety of factors in determining whether to award a grant, including: (1) the number of taxpayers who will be assisted by the organization, including the number of ESL taxpayers in that geographic area; (2) the existence of other LITCs assisting the same population of low-income and ESL taxpayers; (3) the quality of the program offered by the organization, including the qualifications of its administrators and qualified representatives, and its record in providing services to low-income taxpayers; (4) the quality of the organization, including the reasonableness of the proposed budget; (5) the organization's compliance with all federal tax obligations (filing and payment); (6) the organization's compliance with all federal nontax monetary obligations (filing and payment); (7) whether debarment or suspension (31 CFR part 19) applies or whether the organization is otherwise excluded from or ineligible for a federal award; and (8) alternative funding sources available to the organization, including amounts received from other grants and contributors and the endowment and resources of the institution sponsoring the organization.
For programs where all or most of cases will be placed with volunteers the following will be considered: (1) the
Applications and requests for continued funding that pass the eligibility screening process will then be subject to technical review. An organization submitting a request for continued funding for the second or third year of a multi-year grant will be required to submit an abbreviated Non-competing Continuation Request and will be subject to a streamlined screening process. Details regarding the scoring process can be found in Publication 3319. The final funding decisions are made by the National Taxpayer Advocate. The costs of preparing and submitting an application are the responsibility of each applicant. Applications may be released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests after any necessary redactions are made. Therefore, applicants must not include any individual taxpayer information. The IRS will notify each applicant in writing once funding decisions have been made.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of funding opportunity.
VA is announcing the availability of funds for suicide prevention grants under the Staff Sergeant Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program (SSG Fox SPGP). The SSG Fox SPGP directs efforts to reduce Veteran suicide by awarding grants to community-based organizations to provide or coordinate the provision of primarily non-clinical suicide prevention services, including outreach and linkage to VA and community resources, to eligible individuals and their families. The SSG Fox SPGP furthers VA's public health approach to suicide prevention by combining community-based efforts with linkage to clinical care to prevent Veteran suicide for those inside and outside of VA health care. The goal of these grants is to reduce Veteran suicide risk by improving mental health status, well-being, financial stability, and social support for eligible individuals and their families.
Applications for suicide prevention services grants must be received by 4:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 11, 2025. See Section IV of this NOFO for application submission information. VA is unable to receive any application after the deadline.
While all applications must be submitted electronically, copies of the application can be downloaded from the SSG Fox SPGP website at
Ms. Sandra Foley, SSG Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program Director, Office of Suicide Prevention, by email at
Eligible applicants are organizations that meet the definition of an eligible entity in section 201(q)(3) of the Commander John Scott Hannon Veterans Mental Health Care Improvement Act of 2019 (Hannon Act), codified at 38 U.S.C. 1720F note. These may include incorporated private institutions or foundations for which no part of the net earnings incur to the benefit of any individual and that have a governing board responsible for the operation of the suicide prevention services provided under the SSG Fox SPGP; corporations wholly owned by incorporated private institutions or foundations meeting the requirements listed above; Indian tribes; community-based organizations that can effectively network with local civic organizations, regional health systems, and other settings where eligible individuals and their families are likely to have contact; and state or local governments.
VA may prioritize the distribution of suicide prevention services grants to: (i) Rural communities; (ii) Tribal lands; (iii) Territories of the United States; (iv) Medically underserved areas; (v) Areas with a high number or percentage of minority Veterans or women Veterans; and (vi) Areas with a high number or percentage of calls to the Veterans Crisis Line. To the extent practicable, grants are distributed to areas with demonstrated need (
This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) assumes that Congress will extend the authority and appropriate funds consistent with section 201 of the Hannon Act as currently written. The NOFO contains information concerning the SSG Fox SPGP; the renewal and new suicide prevention grant application processes; and the amount of funding available. Awards made for suicide prevention grants will fund operations beginning on September 30, 2025, if the authority granted by section 201 of the Hannon Act is extended and funds are appropriated. This is a one-year award with the option to renew for an additional year, pending availability of funds and grantee performance. For detailed program information and requirements, see part 78 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (38 CFR part 78).
A web version of the VA-FSC Vendor File Request Form must be submitted through the VA Customer Engagement Portal at
A.
Under Priority 2, VA will accept applications from eligible entities that are not current grantees for funding consideration. Priority 2 applicants must apply using the application materials designated for new applicants.
B.
C.
D.
A.
(1) an incorporated private institution or foundation—(i) no part of the net earnings of which incurs to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual; and (ii) that has a governing board that would be responsible for the operation of the suicide prevention services provided under this section;
(2) a corporation wholly owned and controlled by an organization meeting the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A);
(3) an Indian tribe;
(4) a community-based organization that can effectively network with local civic organizations, regional health systems, and other settings where eligible individuals and their families are likely to have contact; or
(5) a State or local government.
Demonstration of eligibility as detailed in the application includes submission of documents as outlined in Section V of this NOFO.
Applicants must be registered in the System for Award Management (
B.
A.
B.
C.
Outreach to identify and engage eligible individuals at highest risk of suicide per 38 CFR 78.45:
(1) Grantees providing or coordinating the provision of outreach must use their best efforts to ensure that eligible individuals, including those who are at highest risk of suicide or who are not receiving health care or other services furnished by VA, and their families are identified, engaged, and provided suicide prevention services.
(2) Outreach must include active liaison with local VA facilities; state, local, or tribal government (if any); and private agencies and organizations providing suicide prevention services to eligible individuals and their families in the area to be served by the grantee.
Grantees identify eligible individuals for services in accordance with 38 CFR 78.10. Based on the suicide risk and eligibility screening conducted by grantees with VA provided tools, eligible individuals that should be considered at highest risk of suicide are those with a past suicide attempt or preparatory behavior for suicide, a recent hospitalization for suicidality, and recent or current suicidal thoughts. VA will provide access to the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) to determine the level of suicide risk. Grantees are required to have a presence in the area to meet with individuals and organizations to create referral processes to the grantee and other community resources. VA requires that grantees
If an eligible individual is at risk of suicide or other mental or behavioral health condition pursuant to the baseline mental health screening, the grantee must refer such individual to VA for care. When such referrals are made by grantees to VA, to the extent practicable, those referrals are required to be a “warm hand-off” to ensure that the eligible individual receives necessary care. This “warm hand-off” may include providing any necessary transportation to the nearest VA facility, assisting the eligible individual with scheduling an appointment with VA, and any other similar activities that may be necessary to ensure the eligible individual receives necessary care in a timely manner.
Apart from clinical services for emergency treatment under 38 CFR 78.60(a), funds provided under this grant program may not be used to provide clinical services (
Public benefits and assistance that grantees may provide participants referrals to include: health care services, which include (1) health insurance and (2) referrals to a governmental entity or grantee that provides (i) hospital care, nursing home care, outpatient care, mental health care, preventive care, habilitative and rehabilitative care, case management, respite care, home care, (ii) the training of any eligible individual's family in the care of any eligible individual, and (iii) the provision of pharmaceuticals, supplies, equipment, devices, appliances, and assistive technology. Grantees may also refer participants, as appropriate, to an entity that provides daily living services relating to the functions or tasks for self-care usually performed in the normal course of a day.
Grantees may provide directly or provide referrals for personal financial planning services; transportation services; temporary income support services (including, among other services, food assistance and housing assistance); fiduciary and representative payee services; legal services to assist eligible individuals with issues that may contribute to the risk of suicide; and childcare. For additional details on these elements, applicants should consult 38 CFR 78.80.
Applicants may propose additional suicide prevention services to be provided. Examples of other services may include, but are not limited to, adaptive sports; equine assisted therapy; in-place or outdoor recreational therapy; substance use reduction programming; non-clinical individual, group, or family counseling; and relationship coaching. VA reserves the right to approve or disapprove other services to be provided or coordinated to be provided using funds authorized under SSG Fox SPGP.
D.
E.
F.
Grantees may make qualifying payments directly to a third party on behalf of a participant in certain situations, including childcare, transportation, food, and housing per 38 CFR 78.80, and the general suicide prevention assistance described in 38 CFR 78.90.
Funds can be used to conduct outreach, educate, and connect with eligible individuals who are not engaged with VA services. Any outreach and education that is funded by SSG Fox SPGP should link directly back to a referral to the grantee's program for an opportunity to enroll the eligible individual in the program.
Funds must be used to screen for eligibility and suicide risk and enroll individuals in the program accordingly. Note that some individuals who come through the referral process may not engage in services. Grantees are expected to determine what referrals are appropriate for these individuals for follow up services. Funds must be used to coordinate and provide suicide prevention services, by the grantee, based on screening and assessment, including clinical services for emergency treatment.
Funds must also be used to evaluate outcomes and effectiveness related to suicide prevention services. Prior to providing suicide prevention services, grantees must verify, document, and classify each participant's eligibility for suicide prevention services. Grantees must determine and document each participant's degree of risk of suicide using tools identified in the suicide prevention services grant agreement. Grantees must also provide or coordinate the provision of a mental health screening to all eligible individuals they serve, when possible. This screening is done with VA-provided tools at intake and again when services are ending and is required of all grantees for each eligible individual served. Having this screening occur at the beginning and prior to services ending is important in evaluating the effectiveness of the services provided.
Grantees must document the suicide prevention services provided or coordinated, how such services are provided, the duration of the services, and any goals for the provision or coordination of such services. If the eligible individual wishes to enroll in VA health care, the grantee must inform the eligible individual of a VA point of contact for assistance with enrollment.
For each eligible individual enrolled in grantee services, grantees must develop and document an individualized plan with respect to the provision of suicide prevention services and based upon needs identified in the baseline screening. This plan must be developed in consultation with the participant.
Additional program guidance is available via the Program Guide, which may be downloaded from
A.
B.
Using a weighted scoring method, the renewal application is organized into the following sections: Program Outcomes (maximum 55 points), Cost Effectiveness (maximum 20 points); Compliance with Program Goals and Requirements (25 maximum points); Exhibits (no point values).
VA will use the following criteria to score grantees applying for renewal of a suicide prevention services grant:
(1) the success of the grantee's program, as demonstrated by progress on program goals via outcome measures and surveys.
(2) the cost-effectiveness of the grantee's program.
(3) the extent to which the grantee's program complies with SSG Fox SPGP goals and requirements.
The Exhibit section includes an applicant budget template, to be submitted in a VA provided Microsoft Excel file. The budget submission must include: (1) Annual budget, attached as Exhibit I, and (2) a Budget Narrative, which provides a description of each of the line items contained in the renewal application.
C.
Using a weighted scoring method, VA will use the following criteria to score applicants who are applying for a new suicide prevention services grant:
(1) the background, qualifications, experience, and past performance of the applicant and any community partners identified by the applicant in the suicide prevention services grant application. (maximum 30 points)
(2) the applicant's program concept and suicide prevention services plan, to include projected number of eligible individuals to be served. Note: program concepts proposing primarily or exclusively unallowed services, such as non-emergent clinical care, will not be considered. (maximum 30 points)
(3) the applicant's quality assurance and evaluation plan. (maximum 15 points)
(4) the applicant's financial capability and plan. (maximum 15 points)
(5) the applicant's area linkages and relations with federal, state, local, or tribal governments or private entities that can enhance services and program effectiveness. (maximum 10 points)
The Exhibit section includes an applicant budget template, to be submitted in a VA provided Microsoft Excel file. The budget submission must include: (1) Annual budget, attached as Exhibit I and (2) a Budget Narrative, which provides a description of each of the line items contained in the application.
(1) Funding cannot be used for construction.
(2) Funding cannot be used for vehicle purchases.
(3) Funding cannot be used for food for staff unless part of per diem travel.
(4) Funding cannot be used for direct cash assistance to participants and their families.
(5) Funding cannot be used for legal services prohibited pursuant to § 78.80(g).
(6) Funding cannot be used for medical, clinical, or dental care and medicines except for clinical services for emergency treatment authorized pursuant to § 78.60.
(7) Funding cannot be used for any activities considered illegal under Federal law, and any costs identified as unallowable per 2 CFR part 200, subpart E.
Applications must receive at least 60 points and at least one point under each of the criteria noted above in Section IV of this NOFO. Renewal applicants must also be assessed by VA as having at minimum, satisfactory performance under the terms of their current grant agreement. After selection of renewal applicants, if there is funding available, VA will score and rank all new applicants who score at least 60 cumulative points and receive at least one point under each of the criteria noted above in Section IV of this NOFO.
VA will utilize the ranked scores of new applicants as the primary basis for selection. The applicants will be ranked in order from highest to lowest. However, VA will give preference to applicants that have demonstrated the ability to provide or coordinate suicide prevention services. VA may prioritize
To the extent practicable, VA will ensure that suicide prevention services grants are distributed to:(i) Provide services in areas of the United States that have experienced high rates of suicide by eligible individuals; (ii) Applicants that can assist eligible individuals at risk of suicide who are not currently receiving health care furnished by VA; and (iii) Ensure that suicide prevention services are provided in as many areas as possible.
A.
A.
Applicants selected in response to this NOFO shall notify SSG Fox SPGP of the start and end dates of their fiscal years, the amount of any other Federal awards they have received since the beginning of the fiscal year during which the application was submitted, the dates of those awards, and whether they have undergone an audit in accordance with 31 U.S.C. chapter 75.
As SSG Fox SPGP grants cannot be used to fund treatment for mental health or substance use disorders, except for clinical services for emergency treatment, applicants must provide evidence that they can provide access to such services to all program participants through both collaboration with local VA medical facilities, and formal and informal agreements with community providers.
B.
(1) Upon execution of a suicide prevention services grant agreement with VA, grantees will have a liaison appointed by the SSG Fox SPGP who will provide oversight and monitor the use of funds to provide or coordinate suicide prevention services provided to participants.
(2) VA will require that grantees use validated tools and assessments furnished by VA to determine the effectiveness of the suicide prevention services. These include any measures and metrics developed and provided by VA for the purposes of measuring the effectiveness of the programming in improving mental health status, well-being, financial stability, and social support, and in reducing suicide risk of eligible individuals. Grantees will be required to use the VA Data Collection Tool for this purpose.
(3) Grantees must provide each participant with a satisfaction survey, which the participant can submit directly to VA, within 30 days of such participant's pending exit from the grantee's program. This is required to assist VA in evaluating grantees' performance and participants' satisfaction with the suicide prevention services they receive.
(4) Monitoring will also include the submission of periodic and annual financial and performance reports by the grantee in accordance with 2 CFR part 200. The grantee will be expected to demonstrate adherence to the grantee's proposed program concept, as described in the grantee's application or in any approved revisions.
(5) VA has the right, at all reasonable times, to make onsite visits to all grantee locations and have virtual meetings where a grantee is using suicide prevention services grant funds to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required.
C.
D.
As part of the national program evaluation, grantees must input data regularly in VA's web-based Data Collection Tool. VA will ensure grantees have access to the data they need to gather and summarize program impacts and lessons learned on the implementation of the program evaluation criteria; performance indicators used for grantee selection and communication; and the criteria associated with the best outcomes for Veterans.
Training and technical assistance for program evaluation will be provided by VA, which will coordinate with subject matter experts to provide various trainings, including the use of measures and metrics required for this program.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on May 2, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(b) The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the APNSA, and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall establish guidance for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies with respect to suspension of federally funded dangerous gain-of-function research, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relevant research funding, at least until the
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “
(a) a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with the terms of this order and any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency is material to the Government's payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4);
(b) a term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate, participate in, or fund any dangerous gain-of-function research or other life-science research in foreign countries that could cause significant societal consequences or generate unnecessary national security risks, and that does not comply with this order and the policies ordered herein;
(c) a term stating that a violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency by any grant recipient may be considered a violation of such term by the recipient's employer or institution; and
(d) a term stating that any grant recipient, employer, or institution found to be in violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-making agency may be subject to immediate revocation of ongoing Federal funding, and up to a 5-year period of ineligibility for Federal life-sciences grant funds offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant agencies.
(a) enhancing the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin;
(b) disrupting beneficial immunological response or the effectiveness of an immunization against the agent or toxin;
(c) conferring to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically or agriculturally useful prophylactic or therapeutic interventions against that agent or toxin or facilitating their ability to evade detection methodologies;
(d) increasing the stability, transmissibility, or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin;
(e) altering the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin;
(f) enhancing the susceptibility of a human host population to the agent or toxin; or
(g) generating or reconstituting an eradicated or extinct agent or toxin.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding for this order's publication in the
(a) evaluate the current risk-based approach to prior approval of licensure inspections, including when such inspections are necessary, and seek to improve upon this approach to ensure all required inspections are prompt, efficient, and limited to what is necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other Federal law;
(b) identify and undertake measures necessary to expand, as practicable, existing programs that provide early technical advice before a facility is operational;
(c) identify and undertake measures necessary to improve enforcement of data reporting under section 510(j)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j)(3)), including consideration of publicly displaying the list of facilities, including foreign facilities, that are not in compliance;
(d) provide clearer guidance regarding the requirements or recommendations for site changes, including moving production from a foreign to domestic facility, and validation of new or updated components necessary in manufacturing; and
(e) review and, as appropriate, seek to update any other relevant compliance policies, guidance documents, and regulations.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding for publication of this order in the